Plan safe automation of repetitive workflows by providing your goal, current steps, constraints, and context to receive a step-by-step automation plan.
Plan safe automation for a repetitive workflow
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | Yes | Goal | |
| model | No | Model | |
| context | No | Context | |
| constraints | No | Constraints | |
| current_steps | Yes | Current steps |
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 is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Plan' suggests the tool produces a plan rather than executing automation, and 'safe' adds a safety focus. But it never states whether the tool is read-only, what the outcome looks like, what prerequisites exist, or what side effects are possible.
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 seven-word sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It largely restates the tool name—'Plan safe automation for a repetitive workflow'—and omits important operational context for a five-parameter tool.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a five-parameter schema with tautological descriptions, the description is not complete enough. It fails to explain what the plan contains, how parameters like model, context, or constraints are used, or when to prefer this tool over sibling planning tools.
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% for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3 even though each parameter description is just a one-word label ('Goal', 'Model', 'Context', etc.). The tool description does not add any extra meaning or usage detail for these parameters.
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 action ('Plan') and a specific resource ('safe automation for a repetitive workflow'), which gives a clear sense of the tool's purpose. It is not as explicit about what distinguishes it from sibling planning tools like coeus_eval_plan or coeus_project_task_plan, so it falls short of full differentiation.
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 phrase 'for a repetitive workflow' implies a relevant use case, so an agent can infer when it might be appropriate. However, the description offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no alternatives, or how it relates to other coeus planning tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.