msp360_list_plans

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 states the operation is a read-only listing, but it does not disclose whether the list includes all plan details, whether it returns only plan summaries, whether any authentication or permissions are needed, or what happens if the computer has no plans. The description is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about the response shape and edge cases.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it could add a brief note about the response format without becoming verbose.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks any mention of what the returned list contains (e.g., plan IDs, names, statuses) or how to interpret the results. Given the sibling tools include msp360_get_plan_info, the agent would benefit from knowing whether this tool returns full plan details or just summaries. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the burden on the description, which it does not fully meet.

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 the 'hid' parameter as the HID of the computer. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does reinforce that the parameter identifies the computer whose plans are listed. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('backup/restore plans configured on a computer'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like msp360_list_computers or msp360_get_plan. It lacks explicit differentiation from msp360_get_plan_info, but the verb 'list' versus 'get' provides reasonable separation.

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 implies usage context: it lists plans for a specific computer, and the required 'hid' parameter makes that clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like msp360_get_plan or msp360_get_plan_info, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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