Content Plan Builder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's operations and output structure but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether 'create' requires authentication (though asanaAccessToken parameter hints at this). It adds some context but doesn't fully cover behavioral traits for a complex tool.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with clear sections for purpose, plan details, operations, and a call-to-action. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating some details more tightly.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and operations but lacks details on authentication requirements, error conditions, output format specifics, or how the AI generation works. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds minimal parameter semantics by mentioning 'arbitrary content' and listing content types, but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Generate Asana project plans from arbitrary content (text, PDF, DOCX, transcripts)' with specific details about what the plans include (5 top-level tasks with subtasks, time estimates, role assignments, dependencies, SMART goals). It distinguishes itself by specifying content types and plan structure, though no siblings exist for comparison.

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 provides clear usage guidance by listing three operations (generate, preview, create) with brief explanations, and mentions 'Call without parameters for interactive discovery.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use each operation versus alternatives or provide exclusions, which prevents a perfect score.

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