plan_shots

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool saves to plan.json and returns the plan. However, it does not mention idempotency, overwrite behavior, or required permissions. The description adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 and front-loaded, with a clear summary sentence followed by details. The Args section is structured but could be more readable with bullet points. Overall, every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and side effects. It explains what the tool does and returns. Lacks error handling details but sufficient for the complexity.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description includes an Args section that explains each parameter's meaning: brief (plain-language description), project (scoping), n_shots (target number). This adds significant value beyond the schema's minimal titles and defaults.

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 purpose: turning a brief into a structured block-method shot plan. It specifies actions like planning shots and saving to plan.json. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (assemble, lock_campaign, etc.) which have different purposes.

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 usage context by saying 'before any pixel is generated', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no direct guidance on when not to use it.

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