algernon_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses that the tool makes one cheap LLM call, produces independent sub-task prompts, and returns a dispatch-ready task list. It does not discuss state changes or permissions, but the 'returns' framing plus the planning nature of the tool makes the operation understandable.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core behavior, and includes only a brief rationale for why tight scoping matters. No filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes to understanding or downstream usage.

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 simple three-parameter planning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: it names the required input, the behavior, and the output destination. A more precise output shape would help, but the phrase 'task list' combined with the dispatch integration is sufficient for practical invocation.

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 schema already documents goal, k, and model. The description adds minor context around k ('k tightly-scoped sub-tasks') but does not materially expand on parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a clear verb ('decompose') and resource ('goal into k tightly-scoped sub-task prompts'), and it explicitly distinguishes itself from algernon_dispatch by stating that its output is meant to be fed into dispatch. This makes the tool's role in the pipeline 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 provides clear context: use this to break a goal into independent sub-tasks for cheap parallel execution, then pass the resulting task list to algernon_dispatch. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to algernon_orchestrate, but the intended invocation path is clear.

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