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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Plan workflow steps for a goal (free).' It does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what the output looks like, whether it requires further actions, or any side effects. The '(free)' hint is about cost, not behavior.

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, concise sentence with no filler, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified, failing to include necessary context about usage, output, or parameters. It is not egregiously terse like 'Process', but it falls short of effective communication.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide enough context to understand its behavior and output. It does not explain what 'plan workflow steps' means in terms of return value, whether it is a one-time generation or a stateful plan, or how it relates to workflow execution tools. The description is largely inadequate.

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 has one parameter 'goal' with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'for a goal,' which maps to the parameter and indicates its purpose, but it does not explain expected format, constraints, or examples. This minimal compensation is insufficient for an agent to know how to fill the parameter correctly.

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: 'Plan workflow steps for a goal.' It uses a specific verb (plan) and resource (workflow steps for a goal). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'run_mission' or 'workflow_stateful', which also deal with workflows or goals.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions specific use cases, prerequisites, nor exclusions. The only hint is 'for a goal,' but there is no comparison with related tools like 'advisor' or 'agent_research'.

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