get_plan_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, and the description names the data source and content. However, it does not disclose potential authentication needs, rate limits, or any limitations of the overview/manifest data, which is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and target without any filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it does not repeat schema details.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It mentions 'overview, manifest, and epic metadata' but leaves the structure and granularity vague. For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and a clear high-level purpose, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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% for the only parameter, project_id, with a clear explanation of its format and relationship to KiraHub. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema already documents the parameter well, the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and a clear resource ('PlanCreator wiki') with a well-defined scope ('overview, manifest, and epic metadata'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_epic or list_epics, which focus on individual epics or lists.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools such as get_epic, get_project_knowledge, or list_plan_tasks, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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