zentao_get_plan

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'get details' but fails to mention read-only nature, rate limits, required permissions, or what 'details' include. This is insufficient for a get operation.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning high marks for conciseness.

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?

The description lacks an output schema and does not specify what 'details' entails. While a simple get-by-ID tool may not require extensive context, the absence of any return format or additional behavior makes it only minimally complete for an agent.

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 100% (the parameter 'id' is described as '计划 ID'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it is essentially a verbatim repetition. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 '获取禅道计划详情' clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'plan details', which distinguishes it from create/update/delete plan tools. However, it does not differentiate from other 'get' tools beyond the resource name.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. There is no information on when to use this tool versus alternatives like zentao_list_plans or other get tools (e.g., zentao_get_product). An agent would lack context for appropriate invocation.

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