aplomo_review_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool 'checks' or evaluates, but does not describe whether it is read-only, what the output looks like, or what happens after the check. The listed criteria are useful but do not fully reveal 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 concise sentence with no filler. The key action and criteria are front-loaded, making it easy to parse and act on quickly.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it does not explain what the tool returns, how the plan should be provided, or when to choose this tool over its siblings. This leaves an agent with meaningful ambiguity about invocation and interpretation of results.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by identifying the 'plan' parameter as an implementation plan and by hinting at what aspects are evaluated. However, it does not specify the expected string format, such as whether it should be a full plan document, a file path, or a summary.

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 names a specific verb ('check') and a concrete resource ('implementation plan'), and lists four distinct evaluation criteria: patterns, scope, compatibility, and validation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like review_architecture or review_diff.

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?

While the description makes it clear the tool is for implementation plans, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as aplomo_review_architecture or aplomo_find_existing_patterns. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative routing hints.

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