Build an Action Plan

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool only organizes steps and does not generate new recommendations, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and limitation. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 5 parameters with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about the tool's behavior (organizing, time-bounded, checkpoints). However, it lacks details on plan structure and return format, slightly limiting completeness.

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%, so each parameter is documented. The description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond stating the general function, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding extra meaning.

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 verb 'arrange' and resource 'user-provided candidate steps into a time-bounded plan with checkpoints', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_reflection_session' and 'structure_decision'. It also explicitly notes what it does not do ('does not invent expert recommendations'), enhancing 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?

The description implies the tool is for organizing existing steps but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The mention 'does not invent expert recommendations' suggests limitations but lacks direct guidance on choosing between siblings.

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