Прочитати план

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or what it returns. The read behavior is only implied by the tool name, not the description.

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, concise phrase that front-loads the key resource (PLAN.md) and its purpose. It is appropriately sized, though it could be slightly more explicit by including the verb 'read' without adding much length.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explicitly state that the tool reads and returns the contents of PLAN.md. It instead only describes the file's content, leaving the agent to infer the tool's behavior from its name and title. This is a minor but real gap in completeness.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to document, but it provides context about what the tool operates on (PLAN.md).

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 identifies the resource (PLAN.md) and what it contains (project state and next steps), which strongly implies the read action. It distinguishes from the sibling plan_append by contrasting with the plan file itself, though the verb 'read' is not explicitly stated in the description and relies on the name/title.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like plan_append or other project tools. The description simply describes the file without stating when it should be invoked or under what conditions it is preferred.

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