list_plans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (per-status task counts) and an efficiency rationale (avoids N dashboard calls), but says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, ordering, or scope/permission limits.

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, zero filler, and the core scope statement is front-loaded before the rationale. The second sentence earns its length by explaining both the returned data and why it matters.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains what each plan reports, which is the key missing piece. It falls short only on parameter coverage (notably as_agent) and on pagination/ordering behavior for a list operation.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only adds meaning for one of three parameters ('optionally filtered by status'). ProjectId is inferable from the prose, but as_agent is entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving a genuinely opaque parameter undocumented.

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 and resource ('List plans on a project') plus the optional filter, so the action is unambiguous. It gestures at the alternative use case ('N additional dashboard calls', implicitly get_plan_dashboard) but never names the sibling, so differentiation is suggestive rather than explicit.

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 second sentence implies the intended use case — pick the next plan with workable work — but never states when NOT to use it or names a concrete alternative such as get_plan_dashboard. Usage is inferable, not spelled out.

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