music_get_change_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context by specifying that approval token hashes are deliberately not exposed, which is beyond the annotation's scope. However, it doesn't describe what happens for canceled or in-flight plans.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core function and a security caveat without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 get-by-id tool with an output schema and strong annotations, this description is nearly complete. It identifies the action and resource and includes a security constraint, though it remains vague about what constitutes a 'plan' and where plan_id originates, which slightly reduces completeness.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was expected to clarify the plan_id parameter, but it contains no parameter information. The single parameter plan_id is self-explanatory from its name, but the description adds no format, source, or validation details, failing to compensate for the absent schema annotations.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and names the resource 'a pending or completed plan,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like music_plan_changes (which likely lists plans) and music_apply_changes (which mutates). The addition of 'without exposing approval token hashes' further specifies the tool's role.

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 a read-only retrieval function but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It doesn't mention that music_list_changes should be used for enumerating plans or that music_apply_changes is for applying them, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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