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. It mentions retrieving logs but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what format the logs are in, or if there are rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for a logging tool.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main function. However, the structure could be improved by separating the purpose from parameter details more clearly, and it's slightly terse for a tool with no annotations.

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 an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter coverage, it's incomplete for a logging tool that might involve sensitive data or complex behavior. It covers the basics but lacks depth in usage context and behavioral transparency.

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 description adds meaning for the 'limit' parameter by explaining it controls the number of recent log entries to display and provides a default value (20). However, with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter documented, this is adequate but not comprehensive. It compensates somewhat for the schema gap but doesn't cover other potential aspects like filtering or sorting.

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 tool '获取操作日志记录' (get operation log records), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'get_plan_details' or 'get_plan_statistics' that might also retrieve data. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention context like whether this is for auditing, debugging, or monitoring, nor does it reference sibling tools. There's no indication of prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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