get_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should compensate. It only states 'get detailed information' but does not disclose that it is a read-only, idempotent operation, or what happens on error (e.g., invalid plan_id). The behavioral profile is under-specified.

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 sentence of 8 words, which is concise but too minimal. It lacks any structure (e.g., multiple sentences or bullet points) that could enhance readability while staying brief.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not hint at the return structure (e.g., includes exercises, duration) or any constraints. Given the low complexity, it meets the minimum viable level.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for the only parameter (plan_id). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 action (get) and resource (plan). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like list_plans (listing) and create_workout (creation). However, it does not elaborate on what 'plan' means or how it differs from other 'get' tools like get_power_zone.

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 given. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_plans for overview, or get_power_zone for specific data). The description omits prerequisites or context for use.

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