Show Recycled Action Plan Template Receiver

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and mentions the GET endpoint, which is consistent. However, it does not add behavioral info beyond what annotations provide, such as potential pagination or authentication details.

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 very concise: two sentences plus API reference. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Minor typo does not significantly impact conciseness.

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 single-resource fetch operation, the description is fairly complete: it states the purpose, required parameters, return type, and even provides the endpoint URL. However, it lacks guidance on pagination (though schema has page/per_page) and error scenarios. The recycled context is clear from the name and description.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description only lists required parameters (project_id, id) without adding meaning beyond the schema. Optional parameters page and per_page are not mentioned, so the description adds minimal value to parameter 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 it fetches full details of a specific Action Plan Template Receiver by identifier, using 'show' and 'fetch full details'. It mentions required parameters and return format. However, it has a typo ('Action Plans' vs 'Action Plan Template Receiver') and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list versions.

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?

It implies usage when you have a specific identifier (project_id and id), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. Sibling tools like list_recycled_action_plan_template_receivers are not mentioned, so the agent must infer from context.

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