Show Recycled Action Plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is clearly a read-only, safe operation. The description adds that it returns a JSON object describing the plan, and provides the endpoint URL. No contradictions. Additional behavioral context beyond annotations (e.g., pagination implications) is absent, but annotations carry most of the burden.

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 three sentences: first states purpose, second provides usage context, third lists required parameters and API details. Every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition. Front-loaded with the key action.

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 show endpoint with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It clarifies that it returns a JSON object and specifies required parameters. Minor gaps: no explanation of what 'recycled' means (context of recycle bin), and the presence of page/per_page parameters is not addressed (though schema describes them). The agent can infer from the name and sibling tools.

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 input schema fully describes all four parameters. The description repeats that project_id and id are required but adds no new semantic information (e.g., format constraints or relationships). Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Returns the specified Recycled Action Plan' and 'fetch the full details of a specific Action Plans by its identifier', which precisely describes the operation. The verb 'show' combined with the specific resource 'Recycled Action Plan' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'show_recycled_action_plan_item' or 'list_recycled_action_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 implies usage by saying 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Action Plans by its identifier.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., when to use list_recycled_action_plan instead). The guidance is present but limited to the primary use case.

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