gis.plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: it returns a JSON plan with inputs, outputs, assumptions, and ordered steps, and it does not execute anything. It also explains the clarification loop via gis.answer(), though it does not mention side effects, auth needs, or rate limits.

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 and front-loaded: purpose first, return shape second, non-execution third, follow-up handling last. Every sentence adds distinct value with no repetition or 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 the description needn't document return fields exhaustively, and it still summarizes the plan structure. It covers the critical non-execution guarantee and the clarification follow-up, though it leaves the broader workflow relationship to gis.run_plan implicit.

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% for the single 'prompt' parameter. The description adds that the prompt is natural-language, which is useful, but it does not clarify prompt format, examples, constraints, or what makes a prompt sufficient versus one that yields 'needs_clarification.'

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a GIS workflow plan from a natural-language prompt.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from execution tools by saying 'Does NOT execute anything,' which is the key differentiator from siblings like gis.run and gis.run_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 gives clear usage context: use gis.answer() when the returned plan has status 'needs_clarification.' It implies this tool is for planning rather than execution, but it does not explicitly say when to call gis.plan versus gis.run_plan in the normal success path.

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