get_recovery_plan

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and lists parameters, with no mention of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the plan is generated on call. This is insufficient for a tool that likely returns a substantial plan object.

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 brief and well-structured with a clear one-line summary followed by a formal Args section. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter descriptions are minimal. It could be slightly more informative without increasing length.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the return value (what the recovery plan contains) or any prerequisites. For a tool that provides a plan for recovery, crucial context is missing, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 description adds value by enumerating valid values for 'failure_type' (nine options), which is not present in the schema (no enum defined). However, 'printer_name', 'has_power_loss_recovery', and 'has_filament_sensor' receive no additional explanation beyond the parameter names and types already in the schema. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates.

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's purpose: to get a recovery plan for a specific failure type. It identifies the resource (recovery plan) and the action (get). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'plan_failure_recovery' which suggest creation or planning. However, it doesn't specify if the plan is retrieved from storage or generated on the fly.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many recovery-related siblings (e.g., 'plan_failure_recovery', 'start_print_recovery'), the description does not provide criteria for selecting this tool. The missing context makes it hard for an agent to decide.

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