plan_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state whether the tool executes commands or merely returns a plan, nor does it mention side effects or safety characteristics. The verb 'plan' implies non-execution, but this is not explicit.

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 a single sentence with no filler, directly stating the core purpose. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 nested dependencies parameter, lack of output schema, and presence of execution siblings, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return behavior, the dependencies field, or how planning relates to execution, leaving critical gaps for effective usage.

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 100% parameter description coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It doesn't add extra meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 provides a specific verb ('plan') and resource ('multi-step terminal workflow'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like execute_command, which executes commands rather than plans them.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as execute_command. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions for planning versus executing, or any exclusions.

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