Retrieve a previously created delivery plan by its plan_id. Returns the plan's current status and contents. Use this tool when the user wants to revisit or summarize a plan created earlier in the conversation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan_id | Yes | The plan_id from a prior create_delivery_plan or refine_delivery_plan call. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it 'Returns the plan's current status and contents,' giving a slight behavioral detail beyond the annotations. It is consistent with annotations and does not contradict them, though it doesn't go into depth about edge cases—acceptable given the read-only nature.
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 three short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a brief note on return value and a usage hint. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or 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 that the tool has only one parameter, an output schema is present, and annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description fully addresses what an agent needs: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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%—the plan_id parameter already has a detailed description in the schema ('The plan_id from a prior create_delivery_plan or refine_delivery_plan call'). The tool description merely repeats 'by its plan_id' without adding new meaning. Since the schema carries the full semantic load, the description provides no extra value, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('previously created delivery plan'), and the key parameter (plan_id). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_delivery_plan and refine_delivery_plan by focusing on retrieval of an existing plan, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's role.
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 explicitly says 'Use this tool when the user wants to revisit or summarize a plan created earlier in the conversation,' providing clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tool names (create, refine, estimate, recommend) make the distinction obvious. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to make the right selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: create a plan from a description, estimate cost from work items, retrieve a plan, refine a plan, and advise next steps. The overlap between create and estimate is explicitly resolved in the descriptions, and the rest are unambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent verb-noun pattern (create, estimate, get, recommend, refine) with the noun 'delivery_plan' or related terms. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a delivery planning service. Each tool covers a distinct lifecycle step—creation, estimation, retrieval, refinement, and recommendation—without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: create, refine, retrieve, and advise. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit delete or list-all-plans tool, but these are not critical for the advisory nature of the service and workarounds are possible.
