get_plans

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states a generic read operation ('Get') without mentioning any side effects, rate limits, pagination, or filtering behavior. The input schema covers project_id, but the description omits any additional behavioral traits.

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 extremely short (one sentence) and front-loaded, but this brevity sacrifices informativeness. While it avoids wasted words, it does not earn its place by providing sufficient detail beyond the tool's name.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should clarify what is returned (e.g., a list of test plans, details). It does not. The tool has 1 parameter and is simple, but the description fails to cover the return type or any edge cases, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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% for the single parameter 'project_id'. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's 'Project ID' label. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('test plans') with scope ('for a project'). It is not a tautology and distinguishes from similar verb-noun combinations. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_plan' (singular), which could confuse an agent deciding between the two.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_plan', 'get_cases', or 'get_sections'. The agent receives no context about the expected output or prerequisites, leaving it to infer usage solely from the name.

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