plan_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'evidence-backed' and outputs but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a generation tool that likely does not mutate state, the lack of explicit read-only hint or safety guarantees is a 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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Generate an evidence-backed pre-edit plan') and lists expected output components concisely. No superfluous words; every phrase adds value.

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 description explains the tool's inputs (task) and outputs (files, impact, test targets), but it lacks details on return format, error cases, or how the evidence is gathered. With no output schema, the description should more fully specify the structure of the generated plan to ensure proper agent usage.

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 describes all three parameters clearly with descriptions and enums. The tool description does not add additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 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 the tool generates a pre-edit plan with specific outputs (primary files, impact, test targets). The verb 'generate' and resource 'pre-edit plan' are precise, and the tool's purpose is distinct from its siblings, which focus on analysis, search, or validation rather than 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 usage for planning a change before editing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like impact_analysis or propose_patch. No exclusion or comparison guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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