Get the project plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, and 'living plan documents' conveys that these are current, maintained artifacts. It adds context about document contents, though it does not describe return format or staleness handling.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core action and resource, then add complementary guidance. The phrase 'not just the task list' efficiently disambiguates from sibling tools without unnecessary bulk.

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?

For a simple, parameter-less read tool, the description provides the action, the exact documents, their semantic purpose, and guidance to combine with sibling tools. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers parameter semantics completely. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Read') on a clear resource ('the two living plan documents') and identifies their contents (requirements and design). It also distinguishes itself from task-list tools by noting 'not just the task list,' which differentiates it from siblings like get_context.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use this tool alongside get_context/get_handoff_brief to understand intent, providing a clear complementary usage context. It does not spell out when not to use it or name alternatives beyond that, so it stops short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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