get_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the response includes step lines with IDs, done state, and linked issues. This is useful behavioral context for an agent, though it could mention read-only nature explicitly.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose with example, second adds response details. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 simple 1-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers purpose, use case, and output contents. It does not mention pagination or limits, but they are likely unnecessary for a single plan retrieval.

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 a clear description of the 'plan' parameter. The description adds an example ID but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 the verb 'rehydrate' (retrieve), the resource 'plan's full step tree', and provides an example ID 'LIF-PLAN-3'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'edit_plan_step' by mentioning step lines show IDs used by those 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 specifies when to use this tool ('when resuming work'), implying it's for retrieving current state. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives, but the context is clear among siblings.

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