plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention potential side effects such as writing files (write_plan, output_path) or the ability to run in dry-run mode (dry_run). The tool also supports custom languages and project paths, none of which are disclosed, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentence, which is structurally efficient and front-loaded. However, for a tool with 7 parameters and multiple behavioral options, this is under-specified—a complete description would need more detail to be appropriately sized. It is not excessively verbose, but the lack of substance makes it minimally adequate.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain what a 'grounded implementation plan' entails, how the plan is generated, whether the tool returns a string or writes a file, or how parameters like dry_run and write_plan alter behavior. An agent would have insufficient context to invoke this tool reliably.

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 input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any of them. It fails to explain what 'task' means, what 'top_k' controls, or that 'language' and 'project_path' affect scope. The description provides no semantic value beyond the schema's raw field names, making parameter understanding entirely dependent on the agent's prior knowledge.

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 with a specific verb ('Generate') and object ('grounded implementation plan') scoped to 'the current repository.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like semantic_code_search or dep_graph, which serve different functions.

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 phrase 'grounded implementation plan' implies it should be used when planning based on repository context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_context or shell. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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