list_plans

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read. The description adds useful behavioral context about the return payload: each plan includes per-status task counts, which reduces extra dashboard calls. It omits ordering, pagination, or auth details, but adds real value beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the practical benefit. There is no filler.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the key returned data and why it matters. The main gap is the undocumented 'as_agent' parameter, though the core behavior is otherwise clear.

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%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It covers ProjectId and Status at a high level, but 'as_agent' is never mentioned, and there is no detail about valid status values or how filtering works.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List plans on a project') plus optional filtering by status. It also distinguishes the tool's value from dashboard calls, so an agent can identify its role among siblings such as get_plan_dashboard and list_projects.

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?

It gives a clear use case: pick the next plan with workable work by using embedded per-status task counts instead of making N additional dashboard calls. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the alternative behavior is strongly implied.

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