Generate Implementation Plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces that it reads a file and generates a plan, which is consistent. No additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations indicate.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome. Every phrase adds essential information without 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description effectively communicates what the tool produces (ordered implementation roadmap with details). The constraints (reads a specific file, does not write code) are clear, making the tool's function fully understandable.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds context about the output (phases, parallel groups, dependency resolution, checkpoints), which relates to the 'checkpoint' parameter and overall purpose, adding value beyond schema.

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 explicitly states it reads TASKS.md and produces an ordered implementation roadmap, and clearly distinguishes itself from code generation. Among 50+ sibling tools, this purpose is unique and unambiguous.

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 clearly states what the tool does and does not (does not write code), providing usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use versus alternatives or when not to use.

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