describe_plan_schema

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses it is a 'Read-only meta tool', educational disclaimer, and explains behavior with path parameter. Does not cover rate limits or auth needs, but adequate for a simple schema retrieval tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with disclaimer, then core action, then usage guidance. Concise and well-structured, though disclaimer could be more brief.

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?

Given no output schema and simple parameters, description covers return value, use of path, workflow, and educational nature. Sufficiently complete for the tool's purpose.

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%, and description adds meaning by explaining dotted path vs JSON pointer syntax and purpose of 'keep token cost down'. Adds value beyond the schema.

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 the engine's versioned Plan JSON Schema and schemaVersion, using specific verb 'return' and 'fetch'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like validate_plan by being a meta-tool for schema retrieval.

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 usage context: optional path parameter for reducing token costs, mentions alternative exposure as MCP resource, and gives workflow hint ('Feed...into update_plan, then validate_plan'). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings.

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