Plan a Lampa feature change

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: snapshot-only, no execution/writes, heuristic not a guarantee, and affected-surface list capped at ~12 files. No contradiction exists between the description and 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?

Every sentence in the description carries distinct information: purpose, usage order and exclusions, parameter behavior, and operational caveats. It is dense but well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded before supporting details.

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?

The description is complete for a planning tool of this complexity. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required, and the description covers usage order, sibling distinctions, parameter semantics, and behavioral limitations in enough depth for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so request and scope_hint are documented. The description adds valuable semantic context: how request and scope_hint concatenate into feature inference and that empty inference still produces a plan rather than an error.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: generating a step-by-step implementation plan with inferred targets, a reverse-ref sample, and coupling risks. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings through explicit contrasts with draft_patch, trace_symbol, and scaffold_plugin.

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 says to call this tool before draft_patch and explains what it does not do compared to draft_patch, trace_symbol, and scaffold_plugin. It also covers behavior like empty inference still returning a plan, so an agent knows when the tool remains usable.

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