ado_testplans_get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation without side effects. The description adds value by listing the returned fields, including the root suite ID, which gives an agent insight into the response content. However, it doesn't disclose error handling, pagination, or auth requirements. Since the annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate—the description contributes some context but not extensive behavioral detail.

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?

Two concise sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and identifies the resource; the second lists return fields and gives a pointer to the sibling tool. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place. This is an example of efficient, well-structured documentation.

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 simple getter with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the return fields and how to obtain the plan ID, which covers the core need. It doesn't mention response format details or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations indicating read-only behavior, these omissions are minor. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both parameters have meaningful descriptions. planId is described as 'Test plan ID' and project as 'Project that owns the plan. Uses default if omitted.' The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond the schema, but since the schema already documents them well, the baseline of 3 is correct. It doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 the tool retrieves details of a single test plan by ID, which is a specific verb and resource. It lists the returned fields (name, area path, iteration, state, start/end dates, root suite ID), making its scope unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ado_testplans_list, which is for discovering IDs, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 provides a clear usage hint: 'Use ado_testplans_list to discover plan IDs.' This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate (when a specific plan ID is needed) and points to a sibling for the discovery case. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when' clause, but the context is clear and the alternative is named.

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