mcp_planning

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only gives a high-level summary of capabilities. It does not mention side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or what happens to existing data during operations (e.g., create vs update). Thus it fails to convey important behavioral context.

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 that is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by breaking into bullet points for clarity. Overall, it is appropriately sized.

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?

The tool is complex with 26 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description fails to explain how operations work together, what the return value looks like, or any constraints. This level of brevity leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the high-level list of capabilities. Therefore, it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 as an 'Enhanced project planning and workflow management tool' and lists specific capabilities like phase-based project management, resource allocation, tracking, risk analysis, and reporting. This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools, none of which are dedicated planning tools, so the purpose is well-defined.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. For an agent to select the correct tool among many siblings, explicit usage context is needed, but it is absent.

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