list_recent_plans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data lives in memory and clears on server restart, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, synchronous, or any potential side effects. More detail (e.g., no destructive actions, idempotent) would improve transparency.

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 bilingual with Spanish first then English, which adds length. While the information is valuable, the duplication reduces conciseness. The front-loaded first sentence in Spanish is clear but could be streamlined into a single, multilingual-friendly paragraph.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It lists all returned fields with types (dictionaries) and notes the in-memory nature. It does not mention any size limits or performance caveats, but these are minor omissions.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, but it could explain any implicit context (e.g., session-scoped). A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description provides a clear purpose for the tool without requiring parameter details.

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 it returns plans recorded in the current session, specifying the verb 'list' and resource 'recent plans'. It provides a detailed breakdown of the plan types (assembly, feature, batch, macro) and explicitly positions itself as a debug aid when the LLM forgets a plan ID, differentiating it from other tools.

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 explicitly states the use case ('Útil cuando el LLM olvida un id de plan' / 'Debug aid'), indicating when to invoke it. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools, the sibling tools (e.g., record_*, run_*) are clearly distinct operations, making the guidance sufficient.

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