review_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the purpose (review) without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it is destructive, read-only, or requires authorization. It adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 two sentences: one for purpose and one listing parameters. It is concise, front-loaded with the core function, and contains no fluff.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, 2 required, and an output schema exists. The description gives purpose and parameter list, but lacks information about what the output contains (though output schema handles that) and error conditions. It is mostly complete for a plan review tool, given the supportive schema.

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 50%. The description lists parameters but adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. For example, it rephrases 'PLAN' as 'plan text' and 'cd' as 'work directory', which matches the schema. It does not add details for parameters like 'model' or 'SESSION_ID' beyond the schema descriptions. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 clearly states the tool reviews project plans/implementation plans, evaluating requirements, tech choices, risks, and executability. The verb 'review' and resource 'plan' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling 'review_code' which is for code review.

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 lists required and optional parameters, implying usage context. It doesn't explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives, but the sibling tools provide contrast. Usage is clear for reviewing plans but lacks explicit exclusions.

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