aura_docs_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose a key behavioral trait: it is 'pure, no fetch,' so the agent knows no network retrieval occurs and the tool only produces a plan. It also names a trusted library set (tailwind, gsap, lenis, iconify), which is useful context. It stops short of describing idempotency, side effects on Aura files, or the return format.

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?

It is short and front-loads the purpose, which is good. The telegraphic style ('library + need -> Context7 resolve/query plan') and jargon like 'docs stamp slot' trade clarity for brevity, so it is not maximally effective conciseness.

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 planning tool with no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented parameters, the description should do more to describe the structure of the plan it returns. It gestures at return components but leaves 'docs stamp slot' and the apply-step format ambiguous.

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 0%, so both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description maps 'library + need' to the two params and gives example library values, adding real value for 'library'. It adds essentially nothing for 'need' semantics, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb and resource ('Plan a fresh-docs lookup') and clarifies it is a planning-only operation ('pure, no fetch'). It describes the output shape (Context7 resolve/query plan + apply steps for Aura files + docs stamp slot), though the differentiation from the sibling aura_docs_check is left implicit rather than stated.

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?

It implies the workflow with 'The agent calls Context7, Aura shapes the rest,' giving a sense of division of labor. However, it never states when to use this vs aura_docs_check or when it should be avoided, leaving the agent to infer the routing condition.

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