plan_spells

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions key internal actions (tracking slots, flagging concentration, etc.) but omits whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. It suggests a safe planning utility but lacks explicit statements on mutability.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence. Every clause adds meaningful capability (available spells, slot tracking, concentration flags, ritual highlights, cost sums), with no redundant or extraneous words.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core functionality well. It explains what happens when optional parameters are provided. However, it could clarify the return format or confirm it is read-only, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a planning tool.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds functional context for the optional parameters (prepared_spells and remaining_slots trigger analysis) but does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'plan' and clearly identifies the resource 'spells for a D&D 5e character'. It lists concrete actions (shows spells, tracks slots, flags concentration, highlights rituals, sums costs), making it distinct from sibling tools like search_spells or browse_classes.

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 description implies appropriate use for character spell planning, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., search_spells for general lookup, analyze_loadout for broader character analysis). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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