read_review_plan

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, yet the description adds real behavioral context: pagination caps (每页最多20条), how to continue (next_before_revision), initial revision semantics (首次0), and a display caution about hint-containing history. This is meaningful value beyond the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then pagination, then the sibling redirect, then the display caution — each clause carries a distinct fact with no filler. The semicolon-separated structure keeps it dense but scannable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape needn't be restated, and the description still covers pagination, cursor continuation, initial-revision behavior, and the alternative tool for queue status. For a read-only paged tool this is sufficient to invoke it correctly.

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 carries the burden. It clarifies before_revision as a pagination cursor ('next_before_revision继续') and limit as a page size ('每页最多20条'), but record_id and the relation of these fields to the returned current_plan_revision/source_revision remain only loosely explained.

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+resource ('读取某题复习计划和全部修订') and explicitly separates itself from the sibling read_review_queue by assigning '是否到期或需重新核对' to that tool. An agent can distinguish its job without opening a schema. Not a 5 only because the scope of '全部修订' is left somewhat open.

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?

It routes one decision to an alternative ('当前是否到期或需重新核对见read_review_queue') and hints that history shouldn't be shown before independent re-practice, but it never states the core conditions for calling this tool versus read_study_record or read_practice_history. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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