list_plans

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context—ordering and the inclusion of an applied flag—but does not mention pagination, minimum/maximum limits, or other runtime behaviors beyond the schema.

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 concise sentence that delivers three useful facts without filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the resource and immediately communicates the most important output characteristics.

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 tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential return semantics: recency, ordering, and applied status. It could additionally clarify the limit behavior, but the tool's overall complexity is low enough that the definition is nearly complete.

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 mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The parameter name and default value make its purpose somewhat self-evident, but the description fails to compensate for the uncovered schema, so the agent gets no semantic enrichment from the description.

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 identifies the resource ('plans'), the ordering ('newest first'), and a key attribute ('whether each was applied'). It does not use an explicit verb like 'List', but the meaning is clear and it is distinguishable from singular/get and mutation siblings such as get_plan, plan_create, and apply_plan.

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 implies its use for retrieving recent plan records with applied status, but it does not explicitly say when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. Context from sibling names (get_plan, plan_create, plan_archive, apply_plan) suggests the intended case, but no guidance is stated directly.

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