plan_figure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns a structured plan, stores the output_format preference in planned_payload, and enables CJK text fidelity guardrails and model escalation. It does not mention any side effects or state changes, but the planning nature and the explicit 'before generation' phrasing imply a non-destructive operation.

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 well-structured with a clear opening purpose and separates key parameter guidance into labeled paragraphs. It is appropriately sized for a planning tool with many optional inputs, though some sentences could be tightened. Overall, it earns its place without being bloated.

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?

With 12 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description provides essential context for the tool's core decision-making but leaves several parameters unexplored. It covers the main input modes and two critical guardrail/format options, but does not fully explain how to set figure_type, output_size, style_preset, or source_kind. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input-side completeness is only partial.

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 0%, and 12 parameters exist, so the description must add meaning. It explains output_format and expected_labels in detail, and clarifies the interaction between pmid and the generic source fields (source_title, source_summary, source_identifier). However, it omits semantics for many other parameters (figure_type, output_size, style_preset, target_journal, etc.), leaving their meaning to rely on schema titles and defaults.

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 opens with 'Plan the best figure type, route, and guardrails before generation', which states a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing its pre-generation planning role and its output of a structured plan for choosing among direct image generation, SVG-style rendering, or chart routes.

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 clear usage context: it is meant to be used 'before generation' and explicitly describes the two input modes ('Provide either pmid or a generic source brief'). It also explains when generic planning is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer them, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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