make_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool generates a plan and waits for user confirmation, implying a non-blocking or pending state. However, it lacks details on side effects, permissions, or what '等待用户确认' means for system state.

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 in Chinese that includes the tool's name in brackets. It includes all essential information without extra words.

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 simple tool (1 param, no output schema), the description covers prerequisite, action, and outcome adequately. It could mention the return value or plan format, but the core workflow is clear.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the required parameter 'taskDescription'. The tool description adds no new information beyond confirming it is the '已澄清的任务需求描述', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool's action ('生成可行执行计划'), its prerequisite ('在需求已澄清 (check_requirements 全部 ✅) 后'), and its outcome ('等待用户确认'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool check_requirements by stating the sequential dependency.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: after check_requirements is fully completed. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or list alternatives beyond the implied sibling, but the context is clear.

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