erpnext_plan_inspect

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral detail by specifying that it reads status, execution receipts, and the full immutable request, which is more informative than simply saying 'read plan'.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Read') and packs the relevant scope into a compact form.

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 read tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is read and when it should be used. The phrase 'before confirming it' is slightly ambiguous about which tool performs the confirmation, but the overall context is sufficient for correct tool selection.

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%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It never explicitly describes plan_id, though the resource name and tool name make it inferable that plan_id identifies the plan to inspect. The description does not add format, lookup, or validation details beyond what the schema already shows.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies three concrete resources: plan status, execution receipts, and the full immutable request. The phrase 'before confirming it' adds a clear purpose, and this helps differentiate the tool from siblings like erpnext_plan_list and erpnext_result_read.

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 gives a clear usage context: this tool should be used to inspect a plan before confirming/executing it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the temporal cue 'before confirming it' is a useful and specific guideline.

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