Diagnose plan metadata, task audit fields, dependencies, and Outbox to identify issues without modifying anything. Ensure plan integrity before further action.
Diagnose Plan metadata, task audit fields, dependencies, and Outbox without changing it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan_id | No | project |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'without changing it', which is a key non-mutation behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose the output format, error behavior, or any other side effects, so it is not fully transparent.
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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the action ('Diagnose') and scope. It wastes no words and is immediately parseable by an agent.
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 has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description clearly states what is diagnosed and that nothing is changed. However, it omits usage context and parameter semantics, though the schema provides the latter. Overall, adequate for a simple one-parameter tool.
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 schema has one parameter, plan_id, with 0% description coverage. The description never mentions plan_id or how to identify the plan to validate. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not add any meaning beyond the parameter name itself.
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 'Diagnose' and enumerates concrete targets: 'Plan metadata, task audit fields, dependencies, and Outbox'. It also clarifies the tool does not modify anything, which distinguishes it clearly from mutating tools like add_task or edit_task and from read-only siblings like read_plan.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons with siblings like read_plan or list_plans, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name and general purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.