show_miniplan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses that the output is byte-for-byte raw content, collapses neighbors to headers, and defaults to the current iteration. It doesn't mention error handling or side effects, but as a read tool the core behavior is clear and honest.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, with the core functionality front-loaded and the usage hint appended. Every word earns its place and the structure is clean.

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 tool with all-optional parameters, the description is adequate: it explains what is shown, the default behavior, and the neighbor-collapsing. It doesn't detail error cases or output format nuances, but the 'byte-for-byte' phrasing and mention of headers cover most expectations. No output schema exists, so the description must self-explain return value, which it does implicitly.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only a minor clarification that 'version' selects the iteration, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it shows a raw PLAN.md snippet for the current or named iteration, with neighboring iterations collapsed to headers. It explicitly contrasts with reading the whole file, distinguishing it from show_plan and giving a specific verb-resource pairing.

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 explicitly recommends starting every session with this tool instead of reading the whole file, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't enumerate exclusions, but the directive is strong and the alternative is named.

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