Plan (Create/List/Get/Complete/Register)

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description implies mutating operations (create, complete, register). However, it does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or safety considerations beyond the annotation. It adds some context but not significantly beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise, front-loading key information (lifecycle, operations, usage). It includes examples and no superfluous text. While it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points), it is effective and non-verbose.

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 21 parameters, no output schema, and destructiveHint=true, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter roles, return values, or operation-specific behaviors. A tool of this complexity requires much richer documentation.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 21 parameters. It only references the 'operation' parameter in examples. With zero coverage, the description must compensate but fails entirely, leaving agents without guidance on parameter usage.

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's purpose: managing plan lifecycle with operations like create, list, get, complete, register, graph, and archive_completed. It provides examples and usage context. While broad, it effectively conveys the tool's role, and no sibling tool overlaps significantly.

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 includes a 'USE WHEN' section specifying contexts like managing plan files, marking plans complete, registering roadmap entries, or reading the dependency graph. Examples are given. Although explicit exclusions are absent, the guidance is clear and sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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