plan_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about return content (all steps, status, active step, overall progress), which is especially important since no output schema exists.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action and its scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence enumerates the output contents efficiently.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. There are no missing prerequisites or side effects to disclose given the readOnly hint.

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 entity_id is fully described in the schema with a clear description. The tool description does not add extra semantics, but none are needed for such an obvious parameter. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Read' with resource 'current plan for an entity', and lists what is shown (steps, status, active step, progress). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling plan mutation tools like plan_set or plan_advance.

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 read-only purpose is clearly stated, making it obvious when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it for reading a plan.

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