planner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the two depth modes and that dependencies are optional, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or limits. This is acceptable for a read-like planning tool, but leaves some transparency gaps.

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 concise, using bullet points and inline code formatting. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then provides use cases and parameter details without unnecessary words.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to explain the return format and behavior thoroughly. It only mentions that depth=flat returns a flat list and depth=tree models dependencies, but does not specify the structure of the tasks (e.g., fields like id, description, depends_on). Several parameters lack explanation, making the description incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the depth parameter by explaining its modes. However, agent and problem parameters are not elaborated beyond their names, and timeout_seconds is not mentioned. The description partially covers the parameter semantics but not fully.

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: 'Decompose a problem into atomic tasks with optional dependencies.' It provides specific use cases like breaking feature requests and surfacing parallelizable branches, which distinguish it from sibling tools such as implement or codereview.

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 concrete use cases and explains when to use different depth modes (flat vs tree). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the use cases effectively guide appropriate contexts, making the usage fairly clear.

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