Recent past plans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states it returns recent past plans with open items, but does not disclose whether it's read-only, what happens if no plans exist, scope limitations beyond the 'days' parameter, or any side effects. Lacks sufficient detail for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and include actionable guidance. No redundant or extraneous information. Highly efficient.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main use case but lacks details on output format (e.g., list of plans and items) and edge cases (e.g., no past plans, all completed). Could be more explicit to avoid ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'days' parameter, with a description of 'default 3'. The tool description adds no additional semantics or usage guidance beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool returns 'most recent PAST day plans with their open (unfinished) items', explicitly distinguishing it from siblings like read_plan (single plan) or search_plans (generic). The use-case as a 'carry-over feed' is specific and actionable.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Surface these at the start of planning and ask: done, carry over, or drop?' This tells when to use it and how to act on results. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use it.

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