shorts_plan_show

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the returned proposals are 'source-free' (a non-obvious output trait) and 'Load' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about failure behavior when the plan path is invalid or what the proposals contain structurally.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and return content come first. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description does convey the load-and-review intent. However, for a tool whose only parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, the definition leaves a meaningful gap in how to invoke it.

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 must compensate for the single parameter and it does not. The parameter is named plan_path_or_dir, signaling it accepts either a file or a directory, yet the description never mentions path/directory semantics, accepted formats, or defaults.

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?

States a specific verb (Load) and resource (a saved shorts plan) plus the nature of the return ('source-free proposals for review'), so an agent can tell what it does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like shorts_review or shorts_package, which handle adjacent stages of the same workflow.

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 phrase 'for review' implies this is the step before acting on a plan, giving implicit usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as shorts_review or shorts_package, so an agent must infer placement in the pipeline.

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