format_as_plan

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true), so the description doesn't need to repeat safety aspects. It adds value by implying the tool transforms content into a structured plan format, but doesn't detail output behavior (e.g., format specifics, error handling). With annotations covering core traits, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 disorganized list of synonyms separated by pipes and dashes ('계획으로|정리해줘|체크리스트|format as plan|make a plan|organize this|checklist - Format content into clear plans'), lacking clear structure. It's front-loaded with redundant terms rather than a coherent sentence, reducing readability without adding 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the core purpose but misses usage guidelines and output details (no output schema exists). For a transformation tool, more context on the resulting plan format would be helpful, but annotations provide safety coverage.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond implying 'content' is formatted. It mentions 'checklist' which loosely relates to 'includeCheckboxes', but no explicit mapping. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with multiple verbs ('format as plan', 'make a plan', 'organize this') and specifies the resource ('content'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_thinking_chain' or 'step_by_step_analysis' that might also organize content, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists synonyms ('checklist', 'organize this') but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools for analysis and organization, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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