Convert project goals and tasks into an ordered implementation plan. Turn objectives into a clear sequence of steps for project delivery.
Convert project goals and tasks into an ordered implementation plan
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | Model | |
| tasks | Yes | Tasks | |
| context | No | Context | |
| project | Yes | Project | |
| constraints | No | Constraints |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does 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 only says 'Convert...' without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects exist, whether external calls are made, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely produces a plan artifact.
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 core purpose. It avoids redundancy but is perhaps too terse to convey sufficient context for a 5-parameter tool. Still, for conciseness alone it earns a strong score.
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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output structure, how parameters interact, or any usage nuances. An agent would need to infer most details from the parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the schema's parameter descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'Model', 'Tasks') and the tool description adds no clarification about expected formats, relationships, or usage of each parameter. It only mentions 'project goals and tasks' but does not explain 'constraints' or 'context'.
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 states a specific action ('Convert... into an ordered implementation plan') with a clear resource and output. It is distinguishable from many siblings by the 'ordered plan' focus, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other planning tools like coeus_eval_plan or coeus_workflow_automation_plan.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling planning tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to avoid it. The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.