mavis_team_plan

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

No annotations provided, but the description effectively communicates the tool's scope: it only lists and gets status, and explicitly states creation is not performed here. While it doesn't explicitly label it as read-only, the absence of side-effect mentions and the redirection to another tool for creation imply a safe read operation. This adds useful context beyond the bare minimum.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. First sentence front-loads the primary purpose. Second sentence gives a concrete usage example. Third sentence explains what is not covered and redirects appropriately. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete, covering two modes of operation and distinguishing from creation. It could briefly hint at return format (e.g., list of plan IDs), but overall it provides sufficient context for selection and invocation.

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 100% (planId described in schema). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it mentions 'status' and 'list' but the schema already clarifies omit to list all plans. Hence, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it lists team plans or gets status of a specific plan, using the verb 'list' and 'get status' with the resource 'team plan'. It differentiates from creation tools by noting that 'Create plans via YAML files ... is not exposed here' and points to mavis_session_new as alternative, thus distinguishing from siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: to list plans or get status (with planId). Also provides when-not-to-use: for creating plans, advising to use mavis_session_new. This clear guidance helps an agent decide between tools.

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