fleet_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it explains internal call to LLM planner, produces /fleet commands, respects dependency order, and returns execution note and cache_hit. Could mention side effects like caching more explicitly, but solid overall.

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?

Concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by bullet points for returns and usage. Front-loaded with purpose, no fluff.

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?

No output schema, but description thoroughly explains the return structure (plan, fleet_waves with fields, execution_note, cache_hit). Also provides execution guidance, making it complete for agent usage.

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?

Only one parameter 'task' with schema coverage 100%. Description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema's 'Full description of the coding task'. Baseline score of 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: planning a task and formatting it for /fleet execution. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'plan_task' by emphasizing the combination of copilot-router's intelligence with parallel execution.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use this when you want copilot-router's model intelligence combined with /fleet's true parallel execution.' Also instructs to run waves sequentially. No explicit when-not scenarios, but sufficient guidance for agent.

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