Show Action Plan Test Record Request

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context (API endpoint, category) without contradicting annotations. It complements the safety profile with operational context.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and includes relevant details (required params, API info). It could be slightly more streamlined but is generally well-structured and efficient.

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?

For a simple read tool with 4 parameters and annotations, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. It lacks clarity on return format beyond 'JSON object' and does not reference optional pagination parameters. Overall adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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. Description mentions required parameters but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (URL path parameters). No examples or constraints are added.

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 states it returns an Action Plan Test Record Request and fetches full details by identifier, clearly indicating a read/retrieve operation. The singular/plural inconsistency (Action Plans vs Test Record Request) is minor and does not mislead.

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 specifies to use this tool to fetch full details of a specific item, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with siblings like list, create, or delete. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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