get_current_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what happens when no plan exists (e.g., returns null or throws error), nor any side effects. The description is too minimal to provide meaningful transparency.

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, using only one short phrase. It is front-loaded with the key information. While it could include more detail, it earns its place by being directly informative for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Despite having no complexities (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the return value's structure or content (e.g., meal plan details), nor potential edge cases. A user cannot fully understand what to expect.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter details. It provides adequate context that the tool requires no inputs.

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 'The currently saved plan, if any' clearly indicates that the tool retrieves a saved plan, and the name 'get_current_plan' reinforces this. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'plan_week' or 'export_plan', though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. For example, it does not clarify if a plan must exist or if this tool should be used before generating a shopping list.

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