Pb Build Plan

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety details. It adds useful context about what the plan returns, but does not explain prerequisites, persistence of plan_id, or rate/auth considerations.

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 wasted text. It is appropriately concise, though the terseness contributes to gaps in parameter and usage guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not fully explain return values, and rich annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a three-parameter tool with incomplete schema coverage, the description still leaves key input semantics and sibling differentiation unaddressed.

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 low at 33%: only 'detail' has a brief description, while 'board_link' and 'include_summaries' are undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not compensate by explaining formats, required input, or the effect of include_summaries.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Plan a Jira board') and names the key outputs (forecast end, confidence, warnings, plan_id). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like pb_forecast or pb_plan_summary.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pb_forecast, pb_plan_summary, or pb_warnings. Usage is only implied by the tool name and output list.

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