plan_manager

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

The description lists the three actions but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether 'save' overwrites existing content, what 'get' returns, or the effect of the 'section' parameter. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency and falls short.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and enumerates the three actions efficiently. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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 (multiple actions, no output schema), the description covers the core operations but lacks details on return values and side effects. The schema helps with parameter semantics, but the description could be more complete regarding each action's behavior.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 4 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, but the baseline for high coverage is 3.

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: managing plans with explicit actions to read, save/update, and list. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other resource types like tasks or memory.

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 clear context on when to use this tool by enumerating the supported actions (read, save/update, list) for plans. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource specificity implies the appropriate use case.

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