get_outfit_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read' clearly signals a read-only operation, and 'locked' hints at an important constraint, but the description does not explain what 'locked' means, what happens if the plan is missing, or how the output directory is resolved. It is adequate for a simple getter but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 that front-loads the action and resource. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every word earns its place, even if the word 'locked' introduces some ambiguity.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so the return shape may be covered elsewhere, but the description leaves out important operational context: what `output_dir` does, when this tool is appropriate, and what 'locked' means. Given the low parameter coverage and absent annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to reliably use all options.

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, but it only adds 'for a character outfit,' implying that the `name` parameter identifies a character. The `output_dir` parameter is not explained at all, including when it should be set or how it affects the lookup. This is a meaningful gap for an optional parameter with no schema description.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and specific resource ('the locked design/plan.json'), further scoped by 'for a character outfit.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like plan_outfit or get_animation_plan, even without naming them. The only minor ambiguity is the word 'locked,' but it does not obscure the core purpose.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plan_outfit or get_animation_plan. The description also does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the plan must already exist or whether this should be called after planning. The intended usage must be inferred from the tool name and siblings.

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