do_plan_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of the outcome (recommendation plus prompt_addendum or would_have), which tells the agent this is a decision-assist step rather than a mutation. It stops short of saying whether the call is read-only or has side effects, or what trial/pilot_force actually change at runtime.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the input contract, then the return contract — a sensible order with no filler. The bracket-and-asterisk notation is dense but readable for an agent parsing structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't document return values in depth and it correctly just names the outcome categories. Its gap is the ten-field nested payload, whose field meanings and mode interactions are undocumented anywhere given 0% schema coverage, which is a real shortfall for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema exposes only an untyped 'payload' object, so enumerating the payload keys with required (*) and optional ([..]) markers is genuine compensation that the schema alone does not provide. But it names keys without explaining them: what 'context_source' selects, how 'run_model' differs from 'cheap_model', or what 'pilot_mode'/'pilot_force' toggle is left to guesswork.

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 verb and scope are present ('Plan one-turn work'), and the description reveals it produces a recommendation of inject/downgrade/none plus a prompt addendum. However 'one-turn work' is internal jargon, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling dm_plan_run or do_plan_result, so an agent cannot confidently pick it over its near-namesakes.

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 guidance at all: no statement of sequencing relative to do_plan_result, dm_plan_run, or do_decide, and no indication of preconditions. The optional [trial] and [pilot_mode] flags hint at experimental versus production use but never explain which to pick.

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