erpnext_plan_list

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds a useful recovery-oriented framing and the distinction of running/unknown receipts, but it does not explain ordering, pagination, or status semantics in detail.

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 compact sentence with no filler and front-loads the main recovery purpose. The semicolon joins two related use cases efficiently, though splitting into two sentences could improve readability slightly.

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-only listing tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description covers the key recovery scenario adequately. It leaves status filtering and pagination implicit, but these are inferable from parameter names and schema defaults, so the definition is minimally viable.

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 must compensate, but it only weakly hints at parameter meaning: 'running/unknown' suggests possible status values and 'recent' implies ordering and limit relevance. It does not explicitly document limit, offset, or status behavior.

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 identifies a concrete action — listing/recovering recent plan IDs and receipts — and attaches it to a specific scenario (lost tool response, before retrying). It avoids tautology and names the resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like erpnext_plan_inspect or 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 provides clear usage context: use this tool after a lost tool response, or to list running/unknown receipts before retrying. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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