Show Recycled Action Plan Test Record Request

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., that it returns a single item, no side effects). It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not add context beyond what annotations already convey.

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, starting with the tool's purpose and including usage instruction, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is fairly concise, though the title is repeated verbatim and the API endpoint may be extraneous for most agents. Could be slightly more streamlined.

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 lacks crucial context: it does not explain what 'recycled' means (deleted items), nor does it describe the return structure (no output schema). With 4 parameters and no output schema, the agent is left guessing about response fields. Incomplete for a resource retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description mentions required parameters (project_id, id) but adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 details of a specific recycled action plan test record request, but there is a minor inconsistency in referring to 'Action Plans' (plural) in the description vs the singular resource in the tool name. It is generally clear and distinguishes the resource type, though not from sibling tools.

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 says 'Use this to fetch the full details...' which implies when to use it, but it does not provide any guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling tools. No explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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