read_plan

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'read content'. It does not disclose what happens if PLAN.md is missing, whether the default `full=true` returns the entire file versus a summary, or any output format details.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded with zero filler, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than economy; one more clause on `full` would have been worth the words.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should at minimum explain `full` and the missing-file case. As written, an agent must guess at half the invocation surface.

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% and the description mentions neither parameter. In particular `full` (default true) is completely unexplained — an agent cannot tell that setting it false yields partial content — and `project_root` is undocumented in both schema and description.

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+resource: read PLAN.md content. An agent knows exactly what artifact this returns. It does not differentiate from siblings like init_plan or update_plan_section, so it stops short of a 5.

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 call this rather than init_plan, update_plan_section, or task_from_plan, and no preconditions stated (e.g., does PLAN.md need to exist first?). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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