getPlan

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the returned data includes entries and child runs, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only nature, error behavior, or permissions, though 'Retrieves' implies a non-destructive operation.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a concise specification of contents. No wasted words or fluff.

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 get-by-ID tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what will be returned (entries and child runs), and the schema fully documents the parameter. Missing error-handling details are minor given the tool's low complexity.

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 100% and the only parameter (planId) is already described as 'TestRail Plan ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the exact action ('Retrieves'), the resource ('TestRail test plan'), and the scope ('with all entries and child runs'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like getPlans (which likely lists plans) and getRun (which gets a single run).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getPlans or getRun. The description doesn't mention conditions like needing a specific plan ID or when a user should choose this over the plural variant.

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