get_plans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' test plans, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify whether it returns all plans, paginated results, filtered lists, or what happens if the project has no plans. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get test plans') and efficiently specifies the scope ('for a project'), making it easy to parse and understand immediately.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'test plans' entail, the return format, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool in a context with many sibling operations, more contextual detail would help the agent use 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 100%, with the single parameter 'project_id' documented as 'Project ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or relationship context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and target resource ('test plans for a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from other 'get_' tools by specifying 'test plans' rather than cases, runs, etc., though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_plan' (singular) which appears in the sibling list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_plan' (singular) or 'get_suites'. The description implies it's for retrieving multiple test plans associated with a project, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for selection.

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