plan_quality

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the scoring criteria but does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a score, report, or errors), whether it has side effects, or any constraints like requiring a non-empty plan. It also does not describe the role of project memories beyond a vague reference.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose before listing criteria. It is concise and packed with information, though the parenthetical citations add length without direct practical value. Overall, it is well-structured and free of fluff.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and sparse parameter documentation, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and expectations. It lacks information about return values, input format nuances, and the relationship between context_memory_ids and the scoring process, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'plan' containing steps and 'project memories' relating to context_memory_ids, but it does not explicitly explain the format or purpose of either parameter. The criteria list gives some semantic context, but it fails to fully clarify what inputs are expected and how they are used.

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 ('Score') and resource ('a Chinese agent plan's quality'), listing concrete evaluation criteria (step count, explicit verbs, dependency ordering, duplicates, alignment with project memories). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan, plan_rewrite, and plan_tracker, which focus on creation or tracking rather than scoring.

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 implies usage when one needs to evaluate a plan's quality, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with other scoring tools, leaving the agent to infer the context from the purpose.

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