plan_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'generates' a plan, suggesting it is read-only, but does not explicitly confirm it has no side effects, or mention prerequisites like git history for the 'since' parameter. The evidence-backed nature hints at analytical behavior but lacks detail.

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 covers the tool's purpose, inputs, and outputs with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 4 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description reasonably covers the tool's function and output structure. It lists plan components but could be more specific about the return format or behavior (e.g., whether it returns a single plan or multiple, if it uses external data). Still, it is largely complete for a planning tool.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters; it merely lists outputs that correspond to parameter usage without enriching parameter details.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'evidence-backed pre-edit plan', and lists specific output components (primary files, expected impact, changed-line ranges, test targets). It distinguishes from siblings like 'recommend_validation_plan' or 'impact_analysis' by focusing on pre-edit planning.

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 for planning before editing but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'impact_analysis' or 'recommend_validation_plan'. No when-not-to-use or exclusion guidance is provided.

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