panelica_plans_get_v1_plans_id

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

The description adds the HTTP method GET, implying a read operation. With no annotations, this is basic transparency, but it does not disclose error behavior or side effects (e.g., 404 if plan not found). The description is consistent with the read-only nature.

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 extremely concise—three short sentences covering purpose, HTTP method, and category. No redundant 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?

For a simple GET by ID with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and method. However, it could be improved by noting what the response contains (e.g., plan details) to aid agent understanding.

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% with the 'id' parameter described as 'Path parameter: id'. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'GetPlan gets a specific plan' and includes the HTTP method GET, clearly indicating a read operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling plan tools like patch or delete, although the verb 'get' and HTTP method imply read-only.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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