Show Recycled Company Action Plan Template Reference

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already convey the key behavioral traits: no side effects, safe to retry. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context by stating it returns a JSON object. There is no contradiction between description and annotations. With annotations present, the description's role is reduced, but it does not elaborate on authorization or rate limits, which would be helpful.

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 and fairly concise, but the first sentence is a direct repetition of the tool name, which wastes space. The API context and endpoint are useful but could be integrated more efficiently. Overall, it is adequate but not optimally 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the returned JSON contains, but it does not. It also fails to clarify that this tool specifically retrieves items from the recycle bin (though the name implies it). Pagination parameters (page, per_page) are not discussed, and the 'Recycled' context is not emphasized. The tool is moderately complex (4 parameters), and the description lacks sufficient detail for complete understanding.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description reiterates the required parameters and provides the URL path pattern, but adds no new semantic information. For page and per_page, no additional meaning is given. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already 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 the tool's action ('fetch the full details of a specific Action Plans by its identifier') and provides the endpoint and required parameters. However, it refers to 'Action Plans' inconsistently with the tool name which specifies 'Action Plan Template Reference', slightly reducing clarity. Among siblings, the name distinguishes it as a 'Recycled' version, but the description could more explicitly differentiate it from non-recycled counterparts.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools, such as show_company_action_plan_template_reference. There is no mention of usage context, exclusions, or prerequisites. The only clue is the tool name and the 'Recycle Bin' in the endpoint, but the description itself lacks explicit usage direction.

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