bw_get_planning_sequence

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 correctly indicates a read operation and details the returned fields, but does not mention authorization needs, potential errors, or rate limits.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and main output, while the second details the step list content. No unnecessary words.

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 has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return value including step details. However, it does not mention what happens if the sequence does not exist, which is a minor gap.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter description. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond restating the parameter's purpose, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 reads a Planning Sequence definition, specifying the exact resource ('Planning Sequence') and what it returns (name, description, InfoArea, etc.). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like bw_get_planning_function by focusing on the sequence of steps.

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 implies usage by stating what the tool does (read a Planning Sequence definition), but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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