plan_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does mention returning an execution plan and instructs on spawning agents, which imply concurrency and planning side effects. However, it lacks details on authorization, rate limits, or whether the tool modifies any state. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 short (7 lines) and well-structured, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose. It front-loads the core action and then details the return structure. No wasted 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 tool's complexity (returns an execution plan with nested structures and no output schema), the description thoroughly covers the output format (analysis, subtasks, waves, strategy) and usage steps. It is self-contained and 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (cwd and task) with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to analyze a coding task, decompose it into subtasks, and assign model tiers. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'decompose_task' by also specifying the full execution plan output including waves and strategy.

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 explains when to use the tool ('Ask the planner to analyse a coding task') and provides actionable instructions ('Spawn one agent per subtask. Run waves in order'). However, it does not explicitly exclude any scenarios or mention alternatives.

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