compute.get_storage_plan

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with 'Read-only evidence', so no contradiction. The description adds genuine interpretive context that annotations cannot convey: that heartbeat age in the returned data is not authorization for takeover or apply, and that output includes owner/stage, per-file journal, and protection guards. It still omits what happens when plan_id is unknown and whether plans expire.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The telegraphic phrasing ('with owner/stage, per-file journal and protection guards') is dense but readable, and the interpretive caveat follows the action in the right order.

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?

With no output schema, the description does outline the shape of the evidence returned and adds a guard against misuse, which covers the essentials for a one-parameter read. Missing pieces are the plan_id provenance/format and error behavior for an unknown or stale plan id.

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?

Only one parameter, plan_id, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema contributes nothing beyond type. The description says nothing about the id's format, where to obtain it, or whether it must reference an existing planned or applied plan, leaving the sole input undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('stored storage plan') and enumerates what the payload contains (owner/stage, per-file journal, protection guards), which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like compute_apply_storage_plan and compute_reconcile_storage_plan. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Read-only evidence; heartbeat age does not authorize takeover or application' gives an implied when-not-to-use rule, steering the agent away from treating this as authorization for adoption or apply. However, it never names the alternative tools to use for takeover/application, leaving the routing inference to the agent.

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