aplomo_review_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds the evaluation criteria but does not disclose behavior such as output format, side effects, or how results are presented, which keeps this at a mid-level score.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and contains no filler or redundant wording. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it appropriately concise.

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 is simple with one parameter and safety is covered by annotations, so the basics are present. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns (e.g., a pass/fail verdict or a list of missing items), and no usage context relative to siblings, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 input schema provides no description for the 'plan' parameter (0% coverage), but the tool description clarifies that it represents an implementation plan and enumerates the aspects it should cover. For a single self-named string parameter, this adequately compensates for the missing schema documentation, though input format is not specified.

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 identifies a specific resource, 'implementation plan', and lists the criteria being checked: patterns, scope, compatibility, and validation. This distinguishes it from siblings like review_diff or review_architecture, though the verb 'Check whether' is somewhat generic and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other review tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not reference any sibling tools, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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