List Action Plan Template Receivers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the behavior of returning a paginated array, but misleadingly states 'Return a paginated JSON array of Action Plans' instead of 'Action Plan Template Receivers'. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise at 4 sentences, with a logical flow: purpose, usage, parameter guidance, and API reference. It is front-loaded but could be slightly more precise (e.g., avoid calling the resource 'Action Plans').

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 the complexity of 6 parameters (including filters) and no output schema, the description provides pagination details and API context but omits explanations for the filter parameters (filters__id, filters__plan_template_id, filters__updated_at). The inaccuracy about the returned resource further reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, giving baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining pagination usage ('Use page and per_page to control pagination') and noting the required parameter, which aids understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 identifies the resource as 'Action Plan Template Receivers' with the verb 'Returns', but later refers to 'Action Plans' which creates mild ambiguity. It differentiates from siblings like 'list_action_plan_receivers' (non-template) through the name, though the description does not explicitly distinguish.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_action_plan_receivers' or 'list_action_plan_template_approvers'. The phrase 'when you need a paginated overview' is generic and does not include when-not or exclusions.

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