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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: no git dependency, path normalization (leading 'plans/' stripped), filename coercion to *.plan.md under workflow_plans/, and a missing-file signal via found=false. It omits auth/permission requirements and any caching or error behavior beyond the found flag.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then path semantics, then the response shape — dense and mostly waste-free. The response field enumeration is justified given there is no output schema, though the sentence is packed enough to require a second read.

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 single-parameter fetch with no output schema, the description covers purpose, path resolution rules, missing-file behavior, and the returned fields, which is close to what an agent needs. The remaining gaps are auth requirements and non-'not found' failure behavior.

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% and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate — and it largely does, explaining that filePath is relative to the plans mapped root, that a leading 'plans/' is stripped, and that names under workflow_plans/ are coerced to *.plan.md. It still gives no concrete example path or note on the minLength constraint.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a file under the mapped plans root from the platform by relative path') and a distinguishing qualifier ('no git required'). It does not name its obvious write counterpart upsert-plans-support-file or other retrieval siblings, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 states the primary use case explicitly ('load a workflow execution plan named in a Continue Locally / implement prompt before falling back to the repo copy'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right first choice. It does not name an alternative tool for the fallback or any exclusion conditions, so guidance is contextual rather than complete.

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