plan-manager

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that write operations are possible and constrains all operations to docs/archive, which is useful. However, it does not explain overwrite/create behavior, file-resolution rules, or any side effects of the write action, leaving important behavioral details unspecified.

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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the actions and scope without redundancy. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding, and no schema content is unnecessarily repeated.

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?

Full parameter descriptions, an action enum, and an output schema make the basic invocation understandable. The main completeness gap is the absence of write-safety context and alternative-tool routing, but for a narrowly scoped plan-file manager the description is minimally viable.

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 100%, so all three parameters already have meaningful documentation in the input schema. The description adds only the .plan.json and docs/archive context, not parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 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 states specific verbs ('Lists, reads, and writes') and a precise resource target ('.plan.json files under docs/archive'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic sibling tools like fs-reader or atomic-writer by file type and path scope.

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 scope is implied: use this tool for .plan.json files under docs/archive. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when NOT to use it or when to prefer siblings such as fs-reader or atomic-writer, so the agent must infer the usage boundary.

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