plan_complexity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool controls required phases, but does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting with is_revision), authentication needs, or rate limits. The behavioral context is partial.

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 that efficiently conveys phase, purpose, and control logic. It is front-loaded with 'Phase 2: Assess search complexity' and contains no extraneous words.

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 8 parameters (6 required), no output schema, and the tool's role in controlling execution flow, the description is adequate but minimal. It could include more details about prerequisites (e.g., session_id from plan_intent) or guidance on when to use is_revision.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on thought, justification, or other fields. The description remains at baseline.

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 purpose: 'Assess search complexity (1-3)' and explains how it controls required phases, distinguishing it from sibling tools like plan_intent and plan_execution. The verb 'assess' and resource 'search complexity' are specific.

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 the tool is used after plan_intent (Phase 1) and determines which subsequent phases are needed based on level. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the phase context is clear and informative.

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