Bytebase: get a plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool fetches a plan and decodes the SQL from its Sheet, which is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond a simple 'get'. It does not mention error cases or whether the operation is read-only, but the verb 'Fetch' and the absence of mutation language make the read-only nature reasonably clear.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the resource and the exact fields returned, and the second sentence adds a practical usage hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the fields returned, and the intended workflow. It could mention that the output includes the decoded SQL statement's format or that the plan must exist, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'plan' parameter with an example. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a plan'), and enumerates exactly what is returned: title, description, target database, status, and full SQL statement. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting the SQL is decoded from the plan's Sheet, which is a unique behavior.

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 says to use this tool before bytebase_update_plan to see current content, providing clear context for one key use case. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like bytebase_list_issues, but the guidance is sufficient for the primary workflow.

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