plan_visual_qa

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: no output shape, no note that the result is a plan/artifact, and no explanation of the oddly named 'five-progress' cases.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally fine. But brevity here tips into under-specification, and the one sentence it spends is partly unintelligible.

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?

For a planning tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a dense sibling set, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks the input semantics and the expected return to invoke it correctly.

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 three parameters (id, duration, viewports). The description mentions viewports obliquely but never explains id's slug pattern, duration's default/max, or the viewport array's 1-4 item bounds, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 implies creating visual-QA capture cases across viewports, and 'across responsive viewports' gives a usable resource signal. However, the phrase 'exact five-progress capture cases' is garbled and opaque, so an agent cannot confidently state what the tool produces or how it differs from siblings like plan_responsive_crop or compare_design_assets.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. With ~40 sibling tools including several design/planning neighbors, the absence of any selection guidance leaves the agent to guess.

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