generate-plan

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states that Gemini is used to generate a plan, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, rate limits, or whether it modifies any state. The description is minimal.

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 that is front-loaded with the action. It is concise and to the point, though it could potentially include a bit more useful detail without becoming verbose.

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 absence of an output schema, the agent needs to understand what the plan looks like (e.g., format, structure). The description does not specify what is returned, leaving a significant gap in completeness for a tool that generates a complex output.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter explanations. The description does not elaborate on what 'task' or 'context' mean or how they should be used, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond parameter names.

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 clearly states the tool generates a detailed plan for Claude Code to implement a task, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'strategic-plan', which could be similar, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'strategic-plan' or when not to use it. The description lacks any exclusions or contextual cues about appropriate usage.

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