List Project Action Plan Template Items

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds that the tool returns a paginated JSON array with metadata, and mentions required parameters. This adds some value beyond annotations but does not detail rate limits, auth needs, or other behavioral traits.

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 two sentences plus a line about required params and API info. It is reasonably concise but includes some redundancy (required params already in schema). The structure is adequate but could be more front-loaded.

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?

Without an output schema, the description mentions a paginated JSON array with metadata, which is helpful. However, it does not describe the fields of each item or elaborate on filter usage. Given the tool has 9 parameters, the description covers basic completeness but leaves gaps in filter details and response structure.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., date formats for filters, sort direction). It briefly mentions page and per_page but without additional semantics.

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 verb 'Gets' and resource 'Project Action Plan Template Items', and mentions use cases like enumeration and filtering. However, it refers to the return as 'Action Plans' which is inconsistent with the resource name, and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like other action plan list endpoints.

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?

Provides contextual guidance on when to use (paginated overview, finding IDs, filtering), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use, exclusions, or references to alternative tools. The sibling list includes many similar list tools, but no differentiation is offered.

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