brief_plan

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: invalid input yields a validation report instead of output, every statement is traceable to its source, and install commands are printed rather than executed. These are non-obvious traits that the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four short sentences, each adding a distinct fact, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first line. The mid-sentence line breaks make it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be, but there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the precondition, the failure mode, and the no-auto-install policy. What remains thin is what a "project brief" actually contains and the explicit handoff from validate_plan.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0% for the single `plan` parameter, but the nested $defs do document goal, steps, id, operation, and the '$step_id' argument-reference convention, so the schema carries most of the weight. The description only adds the precondition that the plan is pre-validated, with no guidance on plan shape or step ordering beyond what the schema states.

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?

"Render a project brief from a plan" gives a specific verb and resource, and "ALREADY passed validation" implicitly separates it from validate_plan and execute_plan. It stops short of naming the sibling it is not, so an agent must infer the routing rather than read it.

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 prerequisite is stated explicitly (the plan must have passed validation) and the failure path is spelled out ("Invalid plans return only the validation report and no project text"). What is missing is a direct instruction to call validate_plan first, which the agent has to derive from the capitalized "ALREADY".

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