unreal_plan

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, the description discloses retention limits (64 records/2 MiB/15 minutes), unknown transport-loss/cancellation outcomes, staleness after editor changes, durability across MCP reconnect but not editor restart, and no Undo/replay/save. This is substantial behavioral context that the annotations do not provide, and it contradicts nothing.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence adds a distinct operational caveat or routing hint. Despite its density, there is no filler; each clause earns its place by preventing a wrong inference about freshness, durability, or side effects.

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 read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers selection, freshness, durability, transport behavior, and side-effect absence. The only notable gap, plan_id semantics, is a parameter-level gap rather than a contextual completeness gap, and the tool's caveats are otherwise unusually thorough.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining plan_id, but it never mentions or defines the parameter. The agent is left with only the property name 'plan_id' and maxLength to infer meaning, which is thin for a tool with retention and fallback semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Review native plan outcome' and adds the fallback behavior to the MCP process's retained observation. It also distinguishes itself from unreal_verify and unreal_diff by positioning them as sources of fresh evidence, which lets an agent separate sibling 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 explicitly says to 'Use unreal_verify or unreal_diff for fresh evidence,' which gives a clear alternative when current state matters. It also implies stale-usage risk by noting records can become outdated after editor changes, though it never states a crisp 'when to use this tool' rule beyond its first sentence.

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