agy_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says it generates or validates plans, but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it writes files, what permissions are required, how long it takes, or what the output looks like. For a tool that likely invokes an external CLI and may modify a workspace, this is a critical gap.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. It efficiently states the core function and the tool used. However, it is too sparse to be concise in a helpful way; it omits necessary context rather than being tight.

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 the complexity (external CLI, workspace analysis, model selection) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'plan' is, how it is returned, whether it executes code, or how it interacts with the workspace. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool without additional assumptions.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level details (e.g., expected format of prompt, meaning of directory, model selection guidance). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds nothing.

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 verb+resource ('Gera ou valida planos de arquitetura e implementação técnica') and mentions the mechanism (agy CLI in planning mode). However, it does not distinguish from siblings like agy_exec or agy_review, which likely also produce plans or run agy commands. An agent cannot tell from the description alone why it should pick agy_plan over agy_exec for a planning task.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance. The phrase 'em modo de planejamento' implies a planning mode but does not state when planning is preferred over execution (agy_exec) or review (agy_review). No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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