msp360_get_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, or what exactly is returned. This is minimal disclosure for a simple getter.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. It is concise and readable, though it could have used the space to add sibling differentiation.

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 getter with explicit required params, the description is adequate. However, the sibling msp360_get_plan_info creates ambiguity, and without an output schema the description does not clarify what 'plan' returns versus 'plan info'. A more complete description would name the alternative.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (id, hid). The description adds only that the plan is 'on a computer', reinforcing the hid context, but does not add new meaning or syntax beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('single backup/restore plan'), and scope ('on a computer by plan ID'). It is clear about what it retrieves, but does not differentiate from sibling msp360_get_plan_info, which could cause an agent to select the wrong tool.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like msp360_list_plans or msp360_get_plan_info. The description provides no context for selection, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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