PlanManager MCP Server

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. '备份' (backup) implies a read operation that might create a copy or export, but the description doesn't specify if this requires permissions, affects system state, involves rate limits, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with a single phrase ('备份所有计划数据'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to stating the tool's purpose, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description's job is reduced. However, it's a backup operation with no annotations, and the description doesn't explain what 'backup' entails (e.g., file format, location, or if it's a destructive read). With output schema handling return values, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context for a mutation-like tool.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy and the lack of parameters is well-handled by the 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 states the action ('备份' meaning backup) and resource ('所有计划数据' meaning all plan data), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'get_plan_details' or 'list_plans' that might also retrieve plan data, making it somewhat vague in comparison. It avoids being a tautology by specifying the scope ('all').

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like 'list_plans' or 'get_plan_details', it's unclear if this tool is for archival, data export, or simple retrieval. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage ambiguous.

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