get_implementation_plan

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and describes output, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is adequate but limited.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage distinction. No extraneous content.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately lists return components (project overview, epic names, phases, story counts, timeline). It is mostly complete, though lacks mention of pagination or limits. For a summary tool, this is sufficient.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters (blueprintId, customerOrgId) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get an implementation plan summary for a blueprint', specifying the verb and resource. It lists returned elements (project overview, epic names, phases, story counts, timeline) and differentiates from sibling 'download_blueprint' which provides full stories and dependencies.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (to get a summary) and when to use an alternative ('For full stories and dependencies, use download_blueprint'). This provides clear usage guidance.

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