get_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool may return either a preview or a previously stored execution result, which is useful state-dependent behavior, but it doesn't say how that state is determined.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is tight, though the space saved comes partly from omitting needed parameter and usage detail rather than from good prioritization.

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 values need not be spelled out, and the dual preview/result nature is mentioned. However, for a tool with a required undocumented parameter and no routing guidance to its siblings, the description leaves gaps an agent would have to guess around.

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% for the single required plan_id parameter, and the description supplies no information about its format, origin, or validity (e.g., how to obtain a plan id from plan_dns_batch/apply_plan). With one required undocumented param, the description fails to compensate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: read a plan preview or stored execution result. It's distinguishable from the mutation sibling apply_plan, but the phrase 'in this process' is vague and never clarifies what a 'plan' object actually is or how it relates to plan_dns_batch/apply_plan.

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?

The description implicitly names two usage modes ('plan preview' vs 'stored execution result'), implying it can be called before or after apply_plan, but it never explicitly says when to call this vs apply_plan or plan_dns_batch, nor how the caller knows which mode will be returned.

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