plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the analogical reuse behavior and the ordered-step output, but it does not state whether the plan is persisted, how missing history is handled, or what the return structure looks like. The effort parameter's depth/rerank behavior is only in the schema, not the description.

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, front-loaded sentence that introduces the tool's purpose immediately and wastes no words. Every phrase ('ordered step plan', 'analogical template') adds meaningful information.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover more ground. It leaves top_k semantics, effort/depth behavior, return format, and choice-vs-alternatives unspecified, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently among many sibling planning tools.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the goal parameter by saying it is turned into a plan, but top_k is completely unexplained, and the 'referenced person's steps' mention does not map to any visible parameter in the input schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'turn a goal into an ordered step plan' and adds a distinctive mechanism ('reusing the person's own past steps or a referenced person's steps as an analogical template'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like replan, plan_quality, or analogy_bridge.

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 wording implies use when a goal needs to be converted into a step plan, and the analogical-template hint suggests reuse of history. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, especially given the many planning-related sibling tools.

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