plan_turn

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

Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds behavioral context by explaining the tool's combined search/journal/risk mechanism and its role in preventing empty-result hallucinations, going beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 information-dense and mostly front-loaded, starting with the primary purpose and usage call-to-action. The long enumeration of combined capabilities and the slight redundancy between 'Returns...' and 'Returns JSON: {...}' keep it from being perfectly concise, but every sentence contributes needed context.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description states the JSON shape, the verdict values, the provenance of ranked targets, scaffold hints, and recommended next steps. Combined with the explicit usage instruction and alternative tool pointer, an agent has what it needs to invoke the tool correctly on a new task.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description with defaults and constraints. The tool description does not meaningfully add parameter-level guidance, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'Opening-move router for new tasks' and lists a concrete deliverable set: verdict, confidence, ranked targets with provenance, scaffold hints, and recommended next tool calls. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_task_context, so an agent can select it correctly among siblings.

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 states exactly when to use it: 'Call this FIRST on a new task to break the empty-result hallucination chain.' It also names the alternative, get_task_context, and the condition for preferring that instead ('broader task context with source code'), giving clear, actionable routing guidance.

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