get_standardization_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose the key trait: this is a read-only operation that does not modify Plane. Beyond that, it says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown plan_id, permissions, or whether the plan is a snapshot or live view. An output schema exists, so return-shape detail is not required.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and the read-only guarantee front-loaded; there is no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so conciseness is not the failing dimension.

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?

Given a single required parameter and an existing output schema, the missing piece is the provenance and accepted form of plan_id. The description covers what the tool does and its safety profile but leaves that one operational gap for an otherwise simple tool.

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?

The single parameter plan_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place its meaning could be established. It never says what a plan_id is, its format, or that it comes from create_standardization_plan, leaving the agent to infer provenance.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('saved standardization plan'), and the phrase 'without changing Plane' implicitly distinguishes it from the mutating siblings apply_standardization_plan and create_standardization_plan. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Read a saved standardization plan without changing Plane' implies the use case (inspecting an existing plan) and hints that it is the non-mutating counterpart to apply_standardization_plan. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g. the plan must have been created first), and no named alternative.

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