Plan the sections of a paper

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by detailing what the tool produces, including per-section subsections, word budgets, reporting elements, sentence frames, and a gap analysis. It also honestly notes what it does not cover: analyses that the design must defend but the study does not mention. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a read-only planning tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a clear Args list that is easy to scan. The Returns line partially restates the earlier output description, which is a small redundancy, but overall the length is justified for a tool with seven parameters.

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 of producing a section-by-section paper plan, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the shape of the output, the prerequisite step, parameter meanings, and the target_journal constraint, so an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly without an output schema.

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?

Although the schema already covers all parameters, the description adds concrete examples for design, topic, cohorts, connectome, and analyses_done, and clarifies that target_journal is 'used only to remind you to check word and figure limits.' This provides real selection guidance beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 opens with 'Produce a section-by-section plan for a paper of a given design', which clearly names a specific verb and deliverable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lnm_classify_design by describing its own output: a plan with subsections, word budgets, obligations, and sentence frames.

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 explicit guidance to call lnm_classify_design first when the design id is unknown, and clarifies the limited role of target_journal and the role of analyses_done in gap detection. It does not explicitly contrast with checklist or audit siblings, but the sequencing note and purpose make the intended usage clear.

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