designer_generate_implementation_plan

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It explains the tool parses a DESIGN.md into 10 sections and generates a plan with tasks, MCP calls, and self-review assertions. No side effects or destructive actions are indicated, which is appropriate for a generation tool. The description provides sufficient insight into behavior.

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 at three sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the primary action and provides essential details without redundancy. Each sentence contributes meaningfully.

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 having only two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the input (DESIGN.md), the process (parse into sections), and the output (structured plan with MCP calls and assertions). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings and provides actionable usage instructions.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for design_md_content ('Caller reads DESIGN.md locally and passes the full text') but does not discuss the framework parameter beyond what the schema provides. The added value is marginal, not enough to raise the score.

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 generates a structured implementation plan from a DESIGN.md file, specifying verbs (parse, generate) and resource (design document). It differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning specific MCP calls like shadcn_get_component, making its purpose distinct.

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 explicitly instructs the caller to read DESIGN.md locally and pass its full text as the parameter. This provides clear usage context. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the guidance is specific enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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