tracking_get_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden to disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention any behavior such as whether the tool is read-only, required permissions, error handling, or what happens when the project parameter is omitted or invalid.

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, short sentence which is under-specified for a tool with one parameter and no annotations. It is too brief to be useful.

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 simple structure (1 optional string parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value or any contextual 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the only parameter 'project'. It neither defines what constitutes a project nor provides any guidance on values or formats.

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 'Analytics tracking plan for the project' states the resource but lacks an explicit verb; the tool name supplies 'get'. It is clear that it retrieves a tracking plan for a project, but it does not distinguish from sibling tools, resulting in moderate clarity.

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 any of the 17 sibling tools. The description offers no context about usage scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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