plan_sub_query

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that data accumulates across calls (stateful) and that is_revision=true replaces all prior sub-queries. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover idempotency or side effects on other planning steps.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste, front-loading the phase and core action. The revision note is efficiently integrated. Every sentence adds value and the structure is easy to scan.

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 10 parameters, 6 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow (accumulation, revision, phase). It doesn't detail the role of session_id or prerequisites, but the schema covers those. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly in a well-scaffolded planning flow.

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 schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description adds context about is_revision (replace all) which is already in the schema ('True to replace all sub-queries'), so it provides little additional parameter insight. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Add one sub-query' with a specific phase context ('Phase 3'). It also explains the revision alternative ('Set is_revision=true to replace all'), which distinguishes the two modes. This is a specific verb-resource pair that stands apart from siblings like plan_complexity or plan_search_term.

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 explicit usage instructions: 'Call once per sub-query; data accumulates across calls' and the revision behavior. It implies the tool fits into a multi-step planning workflow (Phase 3) but doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it. Still, the when/how guidance is clear enough for an agent.

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