Create change plan

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that the tool 'Makes a reasonable assumption rather than asking unless something is truly blocking.' It also describes the return value: 'plan scaffold plus guidance for finalizing it.' These add useful behavioral context beyond the structured 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 is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and efficient in every sentence. It avoids redundancy, with 'Read-only' being the only slight overlap with annotations but not bloating the text. There is zero 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 tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, key assumptions, and what it returns. It does not detail the exact format of the plan scaffold, but that is not strictly required for selection and invocation. It is complete enough for an agent to decide 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Phrases like 'deterministic project context' and 'detected risks' loosely relate to the parameters (e.g., relevantFiles, projectSummary) but do not clarify format or usage beyond the schema descriptions.

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's function: 'Assemble a structured change plan from deterministic project context' and specifies it is used 'before writing code.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_patch and apply_patch by focusing on planning rather than code modification. The resource is explicit: a structured change plan.

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 provides clear timing context: 'before writing code,' which implies use before code-generation tools. It also indicates a behavior of 'making a reasonable assumption rather than asking,' guiding when to use this tool over asking for clarification. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, falling short of a 5.

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