plan_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' establishes a non-mutating read, and the presence of an output schema means return structure needn't be described. However, nothing is said about ordering, whether the chain is scoped to the current game/turn, or how pending plans become active.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource appear first, followed by the useful status enumeration.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is returned. It falls short of complete by not situating the call inside the plan_add/plan_done/plan_drop workflow that the sibling list makes obvious.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing to document, so the description loses no ground here.

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?

Names a specific verb (List) and resource (the full plan chain) and adds the status values it surfaces (active/pending/done). An agent can tell it is a read of plans, but the description never contrasts it with the sibling mutation tools plan_add, plan_done and plan_drop that share the same object.

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?

Reading the plan chain is implied by 'List', so an agent can infer this is the inspection step before calling plan_done or plan_drop. There is no explicit statement of when to use it versus plan_add/plan_done, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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