inspect_plan

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation and 'persistent ... application state' usefully signals that the plan survives across calls and that state reflects application progress, but permissions, side effects, and failure behavior for a bad plan_id are unaddressed.

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, and the key noun phrase 'persistent construction plan' comes early. It is efficient but so terse that it squeezes out needed qualifiers rather than being genuinely well-structured.

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 explained, and the tool is simple with one required parameter. Still, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description should say more about the plan lifecycle and how plan_id is obtained for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 parameter, plan_id, and the description adds nothing about its format or origin (e.g., whether it comes from create_plan or a blueprint import). With the schema contributing no meaning, the description should have compensated and does not.

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?

'Read a persistent construction plan and its application state' gives a specific verb (read) and resource (construction plan) plus what is returned (application state). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like preview_plan, apply_plan, or inspect_blueprint, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The description does not say whether to call this before apply_plan to check progress, after create_plan to verify, or instead of preview_plan, leaving the agent to infer the position in the plan lifecycle.

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