plan_cache_get

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation but does not state whether it is read-only, if it has side effects, requires authentication, or how it handles missing keys. Essential behavioral traits are absent.

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 extremely terse (two words), sacrificing essential detail for brevity. It is not a complete sentence and lacks any structure. While conciseness is valuable, here it undermines clarity and utility.

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 the tool has one required parameter, an output schema (not shown), and several sibling tools (including plan_cache_put, cache_stats, memory_read), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the semantic plan cache is, how this lookup differs from other cache or memory operations, or what the return value represents. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's role.

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%, meaning the schema provides no explanation beyond the parameter name 'task_description' and type 'string'. The tool description does not elaborate on this parameter—no format, semantics, or usage hints. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about how to provide the input correctly.

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 'Semantic plan cache lookup' indicates the tool performs a lookup in a semantic plan cache, which is a generic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what is retrieved and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like plan_cache_put or cache_stats. The description is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb-object statement.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives such as memory_read or other cache tools. There are no exclusions or context for tool selection.

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