call_control_plane_api

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the HTTP method (GET), return format (JSON string), and error handling (returns error information). The <important> prerequisite also adds context about required prior steps. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the prerequisite likely covers that.

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 compact and front-loaded, with an <important> block immediately stating the prerequisite, followed by a one-sentence description and a simple Args/Returns structure. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 tool with one parameter and simple GET behavior, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, return value, and the required prerequisite. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return structure, though the description already says it returns a JSON string.

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 explains the 'path' parameter with examples ('/cc-ui/v1/stacks/my-stack' or 'cc-ui/v1/stacks'), adding format and context beyond the schema's bare string type. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this fully compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 clearly states it makes a GET request to the Facets Control Plane API, specifying the verb (GET) and resource (Control Plane API). It also includes a prerequisite hint, distinguishing it from sibling catalog/search tools.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: 'Make sure you have Called FIRST_STEP_get_api_script_guide first before this tool.' This implies when to use the tool (after obtaining the guide) and differentiates it from catalog/search tools, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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