get_github_project_bulk_plan

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

The description's sole stated action is 'Read the durable state... of an authorized... bulk plan', i.e. a pure read, yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. Nothing in the description discloses any write or side-effect behavior, so an agent would infer a safe read operation that the annotation explicitly denies.

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?

Two compact sentences; the returned-data list is front-loaded and the requirement note follows. Every clause carries content, though the jargon could be trimmed or clarified.

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 usefully enumerates the four data categories returned and states the access requirement, which is decent coverage. However it leaves the planId parameter unexplained and, critically, fails to reconcile the read framing with the non-read-only annotation.

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 0% and the description never mentions planId at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. For a low-coverage single-parameter tool the description was expected to compensate (e.g. what a plan ID refers to, where to obtain it) and does not.

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 ('Read') and enumerates the exact resources returned: durable state, immutable artifact, plan-level actor events, and per-item results of a bulk plan. This clearly separates it from the sibling plan-lifecycle tools (preview/approve/apply), though the undefined jargon 'M10' and 'immutable artifact' slightly cloud what the artifact actually is.

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 a prerequisite ('Project access and a bulk workflow capability are required'), which is useful, but it never says when to call this versus siblings like preview_github_project_bulk_updates or list_github_project_write_audit_log, nor when not to. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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