plan_intent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions creating a session and returning a session_id, but does not disclose side effects like overwriting existing intent on revision, potential errors, or any other behavioral traits beyond what is implied by the schema. Moderate transparency.

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 extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide the complete workflow. No wasted words, every sentence earns its place.

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?

While the description covers the workflow well, it lacks detail on return value format (only mentions 'Returns session_id' but no other fields) and error conditions. Given the tool creates a session and has 11 parameters, additional context on output and failure modes would improve completeness. No output schema is provided, so the description should compensate.

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% with all parameters described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context to the parameters beyond what is already present in the input schema. 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 clearly states it is 'Phase 1 of search planning: Analyze user intent. Call this FIRST to create a session.' This provides a specific verb (analyze), resource (user intent), and distinguishes it from sibling planning tools by being the first step.

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?

Explicitly provides the required flow: 'plan_intent → plan_complexity → plan_sub_query(×N) → plan_search_term(×N) → plan_tool_mapping(×N) → plan_execution' and specifies that phases depend on complexity levels (Level 1 = phases 1-3, Level 2 = phases 1-5, Level 3 = all 6). This gives clear when-to-use and sequencing guidance.

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