Show Recycled Action Plan Reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it returns a JSON object, which is expected from a GET endpoint. No contradiction, but no additional behavioral context (e.g., error handling, rate limits) beyond the endpoint itself.

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?

Four brief, information-dense sentences. First sentence states name, second defines purpose, third specifies return type, fourth gives API context. No wasted words; front-loaded with key details.

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?

Tool has moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema). Description covers purpose, required params, and API reference. Missing guidance on pagination parameters (page, per_page) and error handling, but annotations provide safety clues. The recycled nature is clear from name and endpoint.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. Description adds value by explicitly listing required parameters (project_id, id) and indicating they are URL path parameters. This clarifies their role beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'fetch the full details of a specific Action Plans by its identifier' and includes 'Recycled' in both name and endpoint path, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'show_action_plan_reference'. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'recycled action plan reference' are specific.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., show_action_plan_reference for non-recycled items). The purpose is implied by the 'Recycled' context, but no exclusions or scenarios are provided.

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