research_create_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects, whether it creates a new plan or overwrites an existing one, what the return value is, or how the optional sessionId parameter affects behavior. This is a critical gap for a tool that creates a resource.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded. However, it is slightly too terse for a tool that might need more context, but as a standalone statement it is appropriately sized.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It does not explain the research plan workflow, what a 'structured research plan' entails, how the plan is used by subsequent research tools, or how sessionId connects to other calls. This is insufficient for a tool that likely initiates a multi-step process.

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 provides 100% description coverage, with all three parameters (sessionId, tokenName, tokenTicker) having descriptive text. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Create a structured research plan for investigating a cryptocurrency token'. The verb 'create' and resource 'research plan' are specific, and the name distinguishes it from sibling research tools like research_search and research_quick_lookup. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related tools beyond the name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes other research workflow tools (research_search, research_update_section, research_get_status), but the description does not explain how this tool fits into that workflow or when it should be invoked.

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