plan_intent

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the burden. It states it creates a session and returns session_id, but does not disclose side effects such as overwriting existing intent (though the is_revision parameter exists in the schema). The description doesn't mention idempotency, revision behavior, or any destructive implications. It's adequate but not fully transparent.

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 compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then presents the pipeline flow and complexity rules in a clear, scannable format. There is zero redundancy; every sentence contributes necessary context.

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's role in a multi-phase pipeline, the description covers the essential context: it is the entry point, it returns session_id, and it specifies the full flow and complexity-based phase requirements. It does not address the revision use case (session_id revision) that the schema supports, but the schema covers that. Overall it is complete for the typical agent workflow.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents. It doesn't mention any of the input fields (thought, core_question, query_type, etc.) or their roles. Thus it adds no extra value over the schema.

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 states the exact purpose: 'Phase 1 of search planning: Analyze user intent' and that it creates a session and returns session_id. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by being explicitly 'FIRST' in the required flow, which is listed. This is specific and unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call this FIRST to create a session' and provides the full required flow (plan_intent → plan_complexity → ...). It also gives conditional guidance based on complexity levels (Level 1, 2, 3), which tells the agent when to expect which subsequent phases. This is clear usage guidance with no ambiguity.

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