mcp_planning

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to detail side effects, authorization needs, state changes, or limitations. The 'operation' parameter implies different behaviors but the description does not explain them beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 sentence with a dash-separated list, which is concise and front-loaded with key features. It contains no extraneous information, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability.

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 complexity (26 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, operation-specific behavior, or how parameters interact. The schema covers parameter details, but the description should provide more operational context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond listing high-level capabilities. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 lists specific capabilities (phase-based project management, team resource allocation, etc.), giving a clear overview of the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from many sibling tools that are more narrow (e.g., analyze_adr_timeline, generate_adrs_from_prd). However, it lacks a single concise verb+resource pair and could be more focused.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving the AI agent to infer usage context from sibling tool names. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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