List BIM Plans

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

The description discloses behavioral details beyond the annotations: returns a JSON array of BIM plans, pagination via page/per_page with remaining pages reported, read-only nature, and error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). This adds meaningful context on top of the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage, return format, read-only note, error behavior, required parameters, and API reference. Each sentence adds useful information, though it is slightly longer than the briefest possible version.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, return format (JSON array), pagination, error handling, and API endpoint. Even without an output schema, it gives sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to handle failures, making it complete for a list operation.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description only mentions required project_id and that page and per_page control pagination, which does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Lists BIM Plans associated with the specified Project' with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the purpose as discovering BIM plans or looking up an id before calling another tool, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bim_models or create_bim_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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this to discover BIM plans or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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