Get the Current Reference Plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by noting the revision is 'immutable' and that it retrieves the 'latest' scene-graph revision, which is beyond what annotations alone convey. It also implies the operation is safe due to the read-only wording.

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 a single, focused sentence that leads with the verb and packs in the resource, immutability, and intended use context. There is no redundant information or filler.

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 simple read operation with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is adequately complete. It conveys the purpose and timing, and the annotations cover safety traits. The only minor gap is the lack of clarity on how planId relates to 'latest', but overall it is sufficient.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for planId, and the description does not mention the parameter at all. While the name 'planId' suggests it identifies the plan, the description's phrase 'latest immutable scene-graph revision' introduces ambiguity about whether this is a global latest or per-plan, and no additional semantics are supplied.

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 clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'the latest immutable scene-graph revision' (the reference plan), with a specific use context ('before rendering or approval'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, update, or validate reference drawings/plans.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('before rendering or approval'), indicating it is the read operation to fetch the current plan state. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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