plan_execution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the input format for parallel_groups but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether this overwrites a previous plan when is_revision is true), requirements like authentication, or what the tool does after defining the order. The description is purely about the input syntax, not the behavior.

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 zero wasted words. It leads with the purpose ('Phase 6: Define execution order') and immediately provides the critical formatting detail for parallel_groups. The example is compact and directly relevant. This is an appropriately sized, front-loaded description.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out essential context: what the tool returns, prerequisites (like the session_id provenance), and how this fits into the broader planning flow. It only explains the input format, which is insufficient for an agent to safely and correctly call it without additional assumptions.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds a slightly different example ('sq1,sq2;sq3' vs the schema's 'sq1,sq2;sq3,sq4') and restates the semicolon/comma rule, but this is marginal added information. Since the baseline with full coverage is 3, the description meets it but does not elevate beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Define execution order' and identifies it as 'Phase 6' of a planning process. It provides a concrete format example for parallel_groups, which makes the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like plan_tool_mapping or plan_sub_query; the distinction is only implied by the 'Phase 6' context.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state preconditions (e.g., 'requires a session_id from plan_intent') or any exclusions. The 'Phase 6' label implies a sequential step, but there is no mention of when this should be invoked or what situations call for a revision.

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