Show Action Plan Item

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the endpoint and emphasizing it returns a JSON object. It does not contradict annotations and provides transparency about the API structure.

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 four sentences, each adding value: purpose, usage guidance, return format, and required parameters plus API details. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words.

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 output schema, the description states the return type and required inputs. It lacks pagination details (though present in schema) and error handling. For a simple read tool, it is fairly complete but could mention the 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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats required parameters but does not add meaning beyond the schema. No explanation of page/per_page behavior is given, but the schema already describes them.

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 it returns an Action Plan Item and fetches full details by identifier. It distinguishes from list operations by emphasizing single-item retrieval via required parameters. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_action_plan_items.

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 says 'use this to fetch full details by identifier,' which implies when a specific ID is known. It does not specify when not to use (e.g., for listing) or mention alternative tools. The context of a large sibling set makes this guidance insufficient.

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