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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to disclose return behavior — and it does: ordering, the four status values, progress computed as closed steps out of current-version steps, and the count of pending amendments. Gaps remain around pagination or result-size limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, then layered with return detail; every clause carries information. It is dense — the parenthetical status list and the progress definition make it long for a single sentence — but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe what comes back, and it does so concretely: status, current version, progress ratio, and pending amendments. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only pagination and the project value format are unstated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning; 'optionally for one project' tells the agent that the single 'project' string is a filter and that omitting it lists everything. It does not clarify whether the value is a project name, ID, or path, which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Lists the user's plans' plus the scope (optionally one project) and ordering (newest first). It goes beyond the title by enumerating what each plan record contains. It does not differentiate itself from sibling list tools such as memory_list or project_list, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'optionally for one project' implies how to narrow results, and 'newest first' implies an unfiltered overview use case. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of when plan_status or memory_list would be the better choice.

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