sb_get_snapshot_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, error states, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. For a read operation, it minimally states what it does but omits important context like data freshness or authentication needs.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but sacrifices informativeness. It is front-loaded with the core action, but could easily include more detail without becoming verbose. It earns a middle score because it is not wasteful but is under-specified.

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 that the tool has a simple single-parameter input and an existing output schema (not provided), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any context about what the 'automatic snapshot plan' entails, return value expectations, or error conditions. It meets the baseline but does not fully complete the picture.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning to the single parameter (storage_box_id). It does not explain what a Storage Box is or how to find the ID. The schema only defines the type and requirement, so the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 'Get the automatic snapshot plan for a Storage Box' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('automatic snapshot plan') to clearly indicate the tool's read-only nature. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sb_get_snapshot (which gets a single snapshot) and sb_list_snapshots (lists snapshots), making selection straightforward.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, contextual triggers, or when not to use it. The description lacks any usage context that would help an agent choose between this and related tools like sb_update_snapshot_plan.

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