whim_plan_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'retrieve a saved plan,' which implies a read operation without elaborating on return values, error behavior, or side effects. It does not disclose what happens if the plan does not exist or how the 'name' parameter affects retrieval beyond the schema. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more descriptive 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?

Given the absence of annotations, an output schema, and any explanation of what a 'plan' entails, the description is incomplete. It provides no context on expected return format, failure conditions, or how this tool relates to sibling plan-related tools. A more complete description would clarify the concept of a 'plan' and outline basic usage behavior.

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 single parameter 'name' is fully documented in the schema with its default value, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, aligning with the high-coverage baseline of 3. It neither clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema nor introduces any additional context.

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 'retrieve' and the resource 'saved plan', which accurately conveys the tool's function. It distinguishes well from the sibling tool whim_plan_save (save vs. retrieve), though it could be slightly more specific about what constitutes a 'plan'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus other getters like whim_facts_get or whim_context_get. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or context for using the default 'current' parameter. The description is purely a statement of action without any usage direction.

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