supportpages_get_local_plan

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations it discloses genuinely non-obvious traits: this is a compatibility shim, it deliberately returns no local plan, and related features depend on a web-app repository connection. It stays consistent with the read-only annotations and adds real context about what the call cannot do.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the key limitation is stated early. The only cost is that the opening sentence's vagueness forces the reader through the rest to understand the tool.

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 shape needn't be explained, and the negative case (no local plan) is covered. What remains missing is a plain statement of what a successful call actually yields, which matters for a tool whose name promises a plan it never delivers.

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 claims are made.

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?

It gives a verb and resource ("Read validated local project detection context") but immediately negates its own name by saying it does not expose a local plan, leaving the agent unsure what is actually returned. It is distinguishable from siblings only by the loose label "compatibility tool," not by a stated scope.

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 names a concrete alternative ("Run wtfm analyse in the project terminal if analysis is required") and clarifies that sections/recommendations/PR analysis need a repository connection in the web app. However, it never says when an agent should call this tool rather than skipping it, so the positive usage case is only implied.

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