plan_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the transformation from high-level description to Markdown plan, but it does not disclose any limitations, side effects, or assumptions about the planning process. For a generative tool this is acceptable but not especially rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Takes... generates') and includes the key output format. There is no wasted or redundant wording.

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 that the tool has only one required parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It specifies the input type and the output format, which is all that is materially needed here.

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 for the single parameter, and the tool description matches that meaning by calling it a 'high-level module description'. The description adds no further details about length, format, or expected detail level, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('generates') and a clear resource ('detailed development plan in Markdown format'), making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable. It also differentiates from siblings like define_module_requirements by focusing on the planning output rather than requirement definition.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when given a high-level module description that needs to be turned into a development plan. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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