list_agent_plans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' weakly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but nothing is said about pagination, default result size, required permissions, or ordering. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, so it does not earn its place. Brevity here reflects a lack of content, not efficient front-loading of useful information.

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 explained. However, the description supplies nothing on usage, no annotation-backed safety profile, and no parameter semantics, leaving the agent with an almost content-free definition for a one-parameter tool.

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%, and the single parameter 'limit' (default 100) is undocumented in both schema and description. With low coverage the description is supposed to compensate, but it says nothing about the limit, its units, or whether results are truncated. No parameter meaning is added at all.

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 'List Agent Mode plans' essentially restates the tool name, adding no information about what an 'Agent Mode plan' actually is or what shape the results take. It fails to distinguish this tool from the dozens of sibling list_* tools (list_workspaces, list_personas, list_crews, etc.). Only a bare verb+resource is present, so it reads as a tautology.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the many sibling list tools, and no prerequisites. The agent is given no basis for choosing this tool over list_workspaces or any other list_* sibling. It is simply absent rather than misleading.

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