Decompose into plans

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavior: 'auto-corrects overlaps once' and output fields ('Returns plans, overlapsResolved, attempts'). However, it omits side effects (e.g., does it create files?), permission needs, or idempotency, leaving some ambiguity.

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 efficiently conveys purpose, constraints (2-5 plans, disjoint boundaries), behavior (auto-corrects), and output structure. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description mentions the output fields but lacks parameter explanations and usage guidelines. It is adequate but leaves gaps for the agent to infer.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for the three parameters ('brainDump', 'projectHint', 'repoPath'). The minimal value is provided by the schema names and types, but the description fails to clarify meaning or usage beyond that.

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: 'Split a brain dump into 2-5 plans with DISJOINT file boundaries (auto-corrects overlaps once).' The verb 'split' and resource 'brain dump into plans' is specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_boundary_overlaps' and 'scaffold_worktrees' by focusing on decomposition with boundary handling.

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 when to use this tool versus its siblings. It implicitly assumes the user wants decomposition, but no explicit guidance on context, prerequisites, or situations to avoid is given.

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