plan_rewrite

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the transformation process but does not state whether the tool returns a new plan, modifies the input in place, persists changes, or has any side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

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 efficiently conveys the main purpose and transformation details. The academic reference (Miller & Cohen 2001) adds context but could be considered extraneous. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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 only one parameter and no output schema or annotations, so the description must explain both input and output semantics. It describes the input transformation but does not state the return format, whether the original plan is mutated, or how non-Chinese plans are handled. This incompleteness is significant for a rewrite tool.

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 description adds meaning to the 'plan' parameter by describing it as a weak Chinese plan with steps, duplicates, and a need for action-verb normalization. However, it does not address the object variant allowed by the schema, leaving the structure of object items unclear. The enrichment is partial, so a medium score 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Rewrite a weak Chinese plan into an executable one') and specifies the transformation steps (normalize to action verbs, remove duplicates, order along the standard build flow). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'plan' or 'replan' by targeting weak Chinese plans specifically.

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 when to use the tool (when a plan is weak and in Chinese) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives such as 'replan' or 'plan_quality'. The usage context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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