foundation_plan_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the operation creates missing atomic Block checkpoints, direct Block PlanChanges, dependency-ordered parallel steps, Chain integration gates, and a final Plan acceptance gate, all in one transaction. This transparently reveals the scope and side effects of the operation, though it does not discuss permissions or reversibility.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action in the first sentence and structured elaboration in the second. Every clause adds meaningful detail without redundancy, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

While the description excels at conveying the operation's purpose and effects, it is incomplete for actual invocation. The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides zero parameter semantics, no return-value expectations, and no guidance on required versus optional inputs. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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 the description mentions none of the 9 parameters. The schema provides only types and defaults, with no descriptions, so the agent is left without any guidance on how to use id, goal, actor, title, reason, gitHead, projectRoot, includeStructured, or requiredEvidenceLevel. This is a critical gap for a tool with this many parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Generate one Foundation Plan from every non-deprecated unimplemented Block.' It further differentiates itself from the sibling create_block by stating what this tool creates that the plain architecture-only tool does not. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly states this is an explicit implementation/verification Plan operation and contrasts it with 'plain architecture-only create_block does not.' This gives an agent a good sense of when to prefer this tool over create_block, though it does not enumerate other alternatives or explicit exclusion conditions.

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