plan_execution

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only describes the core action (define execution order) and the parallel_groups format. It does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects (revision overwriting), required preconditions, or error behaviors.

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: one sentence and an example. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it is extremely brief and could include more context without being verbose.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of thought, confidence, is_revision, or the overall process. For a complex planning tool, more context is needed to ensure correct 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%, but the description adds minimal value beyond schema descriptions. Only parallel_groups gets an example; other parameters (thought, confidence, sequential, is_revision, estimated_rounds) are not elaborated. The description's example mirrors the schema's description closely.

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 'Phase 6: Define execution order' clearly states the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling planning tools (e.g., plan_intent, plan_complexity) by specifying this tool handles the ordering phase. However, it could be more explicit about the relationship to other phases.

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 in a sequential planning phase ('Phase 6') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no mention of prerequisites like session_id.

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