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. It only states the action ('get') without detailing traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), performance considerations, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this minimal description fails to provide necessary behavioral context, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 ('获取计划统计信息'), consisting of a single phrase. While it avoids waste, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded detail that could clarify purpose or usage, making it too brief to be optimally helpful, though not verbose.

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 minimalism is partially mitigated. However, for a tool with no annotations and siblings that may overlap, the description should do more to explain what statistics are retrieved and how this differs from other tools. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps in contextual understanding.

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%, meaning the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description does not add parameter-specific information, which is unnecessary here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles the parameter semantics for a parameterless tool.

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 '获取计划统计信息' (Get plan statistics) states a general purpose but is vague. It specifies the resource ('plan statistics') but lacks detail about what statistics are retrieved (e.g., counts, metrics, trends) or scope (e.g., all plans, recent plans). It does not distinguish from siblings like 'get_plan_details' or 'list_plans', which might provide overlapping or related information.

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. With siblings such as 'get_plan_details' (for specific plan info), 'list_plans' (for plan listings), and 'get_operation_logs' (for logs), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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