read_night_plan

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

With no annotations available, the description does carry some of the burden by disclosing the shape of what comes back: slated tasks with their asks, the night's rails, the owner's two cost/fit lines, and remaining budget when a night is running. It says nothing about persistence, permissions, or freshness of the plan, and the return description is phrased in unexplained jargon.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose first, with no filler. But the sentence is over-packed — five distinct concepts crammed into one clause chain with parenthetical jargon — which costs readability without adding routing value.

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 must explain the return value, and it does list the components. It falls short because key terms ('asks', 'the bar', 'filer's override', 'p50') are never defined, forcing a dependency on list_vocabulary that the description does not name.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter hints are given.

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 ('the night's plan and its price') and enumerates what it contains — slated tasks, asks, the bar, the owner's lines, and remaining budget — so the domain is clear. However, it never uses a plain verb (read/retrieve) and leans on undefined in-house terms ('asks', 'the bar', 'the owner's two lines'), so an agent must infer the operation from the tool name rather than the prose.

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 statement of when to call this versus siblings such as get_context or propose_plan_intention, and no preconditions or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the fact that it returns a plan rather than mutating one.

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