mimry_plan_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Deterministic' and 'local' hint at caching/reproducibility, but it doesn't state permissions needed, whether anything mutates, what happens when no plans exist, or how the root default is interpreted. Output schema exists, so return format is excused, but mutation/safety context is absent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Nothing to trim.

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 1-param tool in a dense sibling family with no annotations, the description is under-specified: no root semantics, no behavior on empty/missing plans, no routing to plan_tree/plan_digest. Output schema covers the return type, but everything else is left to the schema's sparse fields.

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?

One parameter (root) with 0% schema description coverage and default null. The description mentions 'for a root' but never explains what a root is, what the default (null) means, or the expected format. With low coverage, the description should compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return ... plan inventory') with a qualifier ('deterministic local') and a scoping input ('for a root'). Clear purpose, though it does not distinguish itself from sibling plan tools like mimry_plan_tree or mimry_plan_digest, which likely overlap.

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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. Given four sibling plan tools (plan_tree, plan_check, plan_digest, plan_list), an agent has no basis to pick this one over the others. The description should route between them.

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