get_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the response includes all exercises and sets for any plan type, but it does not state read-only status, permission requirements, or error behavior. For a simple read operation this is minimally viable but leaves gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the resource and the returned contents, making it appropriately concise for a simple get-by-id tool.

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 low complexity, one required parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description is just adequate. However, it omits parameter semantics and sibling differentiation, which are important for an agent choosing and invoking the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description never mentions the required plan_id parameter. It implies that a plan is identified somehow, but does not explain what plan_id represents, where to obtain it, or any format details.

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 identifies the resource: details of a plan, including all exercises and sets, and notes it works for any plan type. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as get_available_plans, save_plan, or delete_plan, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_available_plans, save_plan, or delete_plan. The implied usage is to retrieve full plan details when a plan_id is known, but no exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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