Show Recycled Action Plan Test Record

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 the endpoint path and states it returns a JSON object, but does not disclose additional behaviors (e.g., that page/per_page parameters are likely irrelevant for a single record fetch). The added context is minimal beyond annotations.

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 and reasonably concise. It front-loads the purpose and includes required params and API endpoint. Could be slightly more concise by avoiding repetition of the title, but overall well-structured.

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?

The description mentions 'Recycled' in the title but the body refers to 'Action Plans' without the recycled qualifier, which could be confusing. It does not explain that this fetches a deleted/archived record. Also, page/per_page parameters in the schema are unexplained and likely irrelevant for a single record, creating potential confusion. Given no output schema, the description could be more explicit about 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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description redundantly states required parameters (project_id, id) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 shows/fetches full details of a specific action plan test record. It identifies the resource and action. Minor imprecision: says 'Action Plans' instead of 'Action Plan Test Record', and doesn't fully distinguish from siblings like 'show_recycled_action_plan_test_record_request', but overall purpose is clear.

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 only says 'Use this to fetch...' without providing any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., listing, showing non-recycled records, showing test record requests). No exclusions or context for selection.

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