plan

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the plan's per-cut content (reason, level, decision, expected output length) and that it performs no rendering. It does not say whether a plan file is written to disk, whether runs are idempotent, or what preconditions (analyze first?) exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short and the distinguishing constraint ('Never renders') is placed where it will be read. But the telegraphic, verbless phrasing reads as truncated rather than economical—sentences were cut for length, not for clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage leave the description as the only information source, yet it omits the input semantics, the pipeline ordering relative to analyze/decide/render, and whether output is persisted. For a tool in a multi-stage pipeline with 10 siblings, that is a substantial shortfall.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, and the description never mentions 'project' or 'project_dir' or how they differ. With 2 undocumented params and zero compensating description text, an agent cannot tell what project_dir points at or whether project is required alongside it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a noun-phrase fragment ('Every cut per talk with reason, level, decision and the expected output length') that conveys what the plan contains rather than stating a verb+resource. A reader can infer this produces a per-talk cut plan, and 'Never renders' does separate it from the render sibling, but the core action is implied rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only guidance is the negative boundary 'Never renders,' which excludes one sibling but says nothing about when to call plan versus analyze, decide, or list_cuts. There are no prerequisites, ordering hints, or exclusions beyond that single phrase.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.