tempo_get_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top: no error/not-found behavior, no permission or scope requirements, no note that the response shape depends on the view parameter.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is terse, but every word carries information and nothing needs trimming.

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 single-record read with annotations covering safety and a 100%-documented schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is behavior on a missing/invalid plan id, which matters more here than for a list endpoint.

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 100%; both 'id' (Plan id) and 'view' (compact vs full, including that compact strips avatar/image URLs) are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by id' merely restates the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (a single Tempo plan), and parenthesizes the domain meaning 'resource allocation' so an agent unfamiliar with Tempo understands what a plan is. The word 'single' implicitly separates it from tempo_get_plans, but it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Only 'by id' signals when this tool applies; there is no statement of when to prefer it over tempo_get_plans or the other plan tools (tempo_update_plan, tempo_delete_plan), and no mention of what to do when the id is unknown.

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