task_plan

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly specifies the return shape ('success', 'spec', 'total', 'steps') and notes provenance information, but it does not state whether the operation has side effects, requires state, or is purely computational. This is a moderate transparency gap for a planning tool.

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 appropriately sized, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a concise justification of provenance. The Args/Returns structure is clear and front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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 an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the input structure and explains the high-level output. It adds context about the 'reification ladder' and provenance, making the tool's role clear. Minor gaps remain in explaining what a 'step' looks like and the exact meaning of 'spec' in the return, but the output schema likely covers some of this.

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 only declares an object with additionalProperties, providing no field-level detail. The description compensates by listing the expected DTS keys ('name, goal, given, unknowns, assumptions, base_formulas, modifications, acceptance, metadata'), which gives meaningful guidance beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on each key's meaning or format.

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 defines the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Reify') and resource ('Derivation Task Spec (DTS)') transformed into an 'ordered plan of tool calls.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling execution tools by emphasizing 'Each planned step names the tool that would produce it (provenance),' highlighting its unique planning role.

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 implies that this tool is used to convert a DTS into a plan before executing tool calls, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context signals show sibling tools are mostly derivation/formula execution and planning tools, yet no direct comparison is made.

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