plan_next_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the single-task return and iterative re-planning behavior, but it does not explain handling of infeasible plans, conflicts, prerequisites, or empty budgets.

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 short, front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful instruction. The first paragraph states the purpose; the second specifies the state to pass and the iteration rule.

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-value detail is not required. However, for a 7-parameter planning tool, the description leaves significant input semantics unexplained, especially conflicts and prerequisites.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions tasks, utilities, budget, and succeeded/failed/cancelled statuses, but omits the important conflicts and prerequisites parameters and does not clarify cost semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and result: re-plan and return the single best task to execute now. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like plan_tasks or check_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?

It clearly says to use this after something changed and to call again after each action. It also explains what state to pass, but it does not mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives.

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