Evaluate an implementation plan for feasibility, risk, and requirement fit to identify gaps before development.
Evaluate an implementation plan for feasibility, risk, and requirement fit
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | Plan | |
| model | No | Model | |
| context | No | Context | |
| requirements | No | Requirements |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists evaluation criteria and does not disclose the output format, whether model/context/requirements affect behavior, or any side effects. The absence of these details leaves the agent guessing.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, which is appropriate given the simple input schema.
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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, this description is incomplete. It does not explain how the optional model/context/requirements parameters are used or what the evaluation result looks like, so an agent cannot confidently predict the invocation or response.
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 nominally documents all four parameters, but those descriptions are tautological ('Plan', 'Model', 'Context', 'Requirements'). The tool description adds only marginal meaning by linking 'requirement fit' to the requirements parameter, so it barely meets the baseline.
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 names a specific verb (Evaluate), a distinct resource (implementation plan), and the key criteria (feasibility, risk, requirement fit). It is clear but does not explicitly contrast it with similar sibling tools like coeus_project_task_plan or coeus_review.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions of use. The intended context is only implied by the name and one-line purpose, which is not enough for a tool with many sibling planning/review tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.