list_plans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. Beyond that, the description discloses nothing about return behavior, ordering, or pagination, so it adds little behavioral context.

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?

A single compact sentence-fragment with no waste. It is front-loaded, though being a fragment it lacks an explicit action verb.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only nature. However, for a filterable list tool the description never states that status acts as a filter or how results are bounded, leaving a modest 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single 'status' param has no description or enum in the schema. The description compensates by enumerating the valid values (pending, approved, applied, rejected, expired, invalid, failed), which is exactly the information the schema lacks.

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 names the resource ('Plans') and enumerates their possible states, but omits an explicit verb – it relies on the tool name 'list_plans' to convey the listing action. It gives no differentiation from siblings like list_decks or apply_plan.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as list_decks, apply_plan, or reject_plan, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.

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