get_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific return fields (table, fingerprint, status), which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention any additional behavior like error handling or pagination, but for a simple read tool this is acceptable.

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?

The description is a single sentence that directly states the core output of the tool. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information, making it optimally concise.

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, the description provides the key output details and the schema indicates the required parameter. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, and it doesn't mention that plan_id is required or how to reference it. The presence of an output schema covers the return structure, but the description is thin on operational context.

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%, and the description does not explain the plan_id parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to add any context about how to obtain plan_id or what format it should be in. Since the description carries the burden for low schema coverage, it falls short.

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 clearly states the tool returns a saved plan's table, fingerprint, and status. This is specific enough to distinguish it from list_plans (which lists plans) and other plan-related tools, though it doesn't explicitly use a verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch'. The name get_plan reinforces the purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_plans or plan_update. It doesn't mention that it's for retrieving a single plan by ID or contrast it with listing all plans. An agent has to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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