list_planning

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the task selection criteria and a concrete ordering behavior: 'Resubmitted records come FIRST.' It does not discuss pagination, side effects, or authentication, but for a list operation the core behaviors are reasonably transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core scope, and the second adds the critical ordering rule and an explanatory rationale. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple list tool with an output schema and two well-documented optional parameters, the description covers membership and ordering sufficiently. It could be more explicit about how this relates to sibling tools, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about branch or project, but it does not need to because the schema descriptions are clear and complete.

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 identifies exactly what the tool returns: tasks owned by the planning stage, specifically those never specced or sent back by a build. It relies on the name 'list_planning' for the verb, but the scope and inclusion criteria are specific enough to distinguish it from sibling list tools.

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 when to use the tool — when you need planning-stage tasks — and clarifies that resubmitted replan records are prioritized. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like list_ready or list_tasks.

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