rx_project_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the redundant «Только чтение» adds little. However, the description contributes a genuinely non-annotated behavior: large plans are truncated by max_rows, which tells the agent results may be incomplete. It stops short of describing pagination or return shape.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then usage, then the id prerequisite, then the truncation caveat and read-only note. Nothing is padded; each sentence carries a distinct fact.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the returned content (tree fields, percentages, overdue flags), the truncation behavior for large plans, the id sourcing requirement, and the read-only nature. That is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by clarifying that the id is a plan/document id rather than a project id (a real misuse vector given sibling rx_project), and by explaining the truncation role of max_rows. No format or default syntax details beyond the schema.

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?

Names the resource (план проекта) and enumerates exactly what it returns: разделы, работы, вехи, сроки, ответственные, проценты, просрочки. It also distinguishes itself from rx_project and rx_project_plans by stating the required id is a plan/document id, not a project id, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives concrete triggering questions («как идёт проект», «что отстаёт», «кто за что отвечает») and a hard prerequisite: the id must come from rx_project or rx_project_plans, explicitly not a project id. When-to-use and the sibling dependency are both spelled out.

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