get_plan_details

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, or mention authorization, rate limits, or side effects. The output listing provides some transparency but behavioral context is minimal.

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 concise: two clear sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second enumerates the returned data. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description lists the types of data returned (contacts, cycles, etc.), which is helpful. However, it omits potential pagination, error handling, or details on each type's structure. It's adequate for a simple one-param tool but has gaps.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining the plan_id parameter (e.g., how to obtain it, format, or constraints). It adds no value beyond the schema's bare type.

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 gets comprehensive details for a single plan, listing specific data types (contacts, cycles, services, etc.) to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_plan_projects or search_plans.

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 when needing full plan details, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like search_plans for listing or get_plan_projects for partial data. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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