show_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output content (counts + current iteration) but does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, what happens if no PLAN.md is found, or what exactly the counts refer to. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 with zero filler: the first states what the tool is, the second gives routing guidance. The most important information (compact index, prefer alternatives) is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should disclose the read-only safety profile and what 'counts' encompasses to be fully self-sufficient. These gaps keep it at adequate rather than complete.

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 fully documents the single optional plan_path parameter, warranting the baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed given the schema covers everything about the parameter.

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?

"Compact index: counts + current iteration" states the tool's function with a specific noun phrase that describes what it returns, and it explicitly contrasts itself with get_current_iteration / get_iteration, distinguishing it from siblings. It lacks a true verb but is specific enough for an agent to understand the resource and scope.

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 tells agents to prefer get_current_iteration / get_iteration over this tool, and references full PLAN.md as another alternative. It clearly communicates when NOT to use it, though it doesn't fully spell out the positive condition ('use this when you need a quick overview/counts' is implied rather than stated).

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