replan

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the main behaviors: moving the failing step to end (avoided), preserving alternatives, and storing the decision. It adds context about the re-planning decision being stored, which is valuable, though it lacks specifics on parameter semantics and potential side effects.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes all necessary components without redundancy. Every phrase adds meaning.

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 three parameters with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It explains the overall behavior but omits parameter meanings (especially top_k) and does not specify return values or prerequisites, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0% for the three parameters (goal, top_k, failed_step). The description only vaguely references the failing step but does not define goal or top_k. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving half the parameters ambiguous.

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 ('Re-plan') and resource ('after a failed step'), and clearly describes the action: moving the failing step to the end, keeping successful alternatives, and storing the decision. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'plan' and 'plan_rewrite' by specifying the re-planning context.

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 explicitly conditions usage on 'after a failed step', providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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