mcp_planning

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

Annotations provide no read-only, idempotency, or destructive guarantees, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It lists 'management' and 'tracking' features but never states whether operations create files, modify project state, require authentication, or produce persisted artifacts. This adds little behavioral context beyond what the schema already implies.

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 with a useful capability list and minimal filler. 'Enhanced' is somewhat empty, but the hyphenated list front-loads the tool's main value areas without excessive length.

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 tool with 26 parameters, 6 operation modes, nested objects, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It fails to explain how operations are selected, what outputs or report formats to expect, what the required `projectPath` represents, or how the various boolean flags interact. An agent would need deep schema inspection to use this safely.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's feature list loosely maps to the operation enum values (e.g., 'resource allocation' maps to manage_resources, 'reporting' maps to generate_reports), but it adds no concrete parameter-level guidance or workflow context beyond the schema.

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 names a clear domain ('project planning and workflow management') and lists six concrete capability areas: phase management, resource allocation, progress tracking, risk analysis, and reporting. This distinguishes it from the ADR-focused and content-focused sibling tools, though it stops short of naming a single primary verb or the `operation` parameter that selects among its functions.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or how the `operation` parameter routes to different workflows. Given the large sibling list, the absence of any comparison or exclusion leaves the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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