generate_plan

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 states what the tool generates (phases and task groups) but does not mention potential side effects, whether it writes to disk, or how the output is returned. For a generation tool, this lack of clarity about behavior is a notable gap.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes the key scope. There is no unnecessary repetition or filler, and it is well-structured for quick reading.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with only two parameters, and the description covers the core output (plan with phases and task groups). However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does not fully explain what a plan contains or how the custom parameter integrates. Given the breadth of sibling tools, additional context on how this fits into a development workflow would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter understanding. It indirectly lists the keyword enum values by mentioning SaaS, Enterprise, E-Commerce, and Portfolio, but it fails to mention the 'custom' parameter at all, leaving its purpose unclear. The description does not add meaningful detail for either parameter beyond what the schema bare enum shows.

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 generates a full-stack development plan with phases and task groups, and specifies the supported project types (SaaS, Enterprise, E-Commerce, Portfolio). This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other generate_* tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like generate_project_structure, leaving the distinction to inference.

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 when a full-stack development plan is needed for the listed project types, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention any alternatives. For example, it doesn't say to use generate_project_structure for directory layout instead. This is implied usage rather than clear guidance.

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