mutations_get_mutation_plan

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds context by mentioning 'immutable preview' and 'current local plan state', but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error conditions or authorization needs. Credit for adding some context beyond annotations, but not substantial.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key action and object. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple read-only getter.

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 tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clarifies the two components of the return value ('stored immutable preview' and 'current local plan state'). However, it could be slightly richer by explicitly mentioning plan_id as the input, but given the schema and output schema, the description is sufficient.

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%; the description does not mention the 'plan_id' parameter at all. The schema only provides the name and type, leaving the agent to guess what a valid plan_id is. With 0% coverage, the description fails to compensate, resulting in minimal semantic guidance for the parameter.

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 'Return the stored immutable preview and current local plan state' states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('mutation plan'), and clearly distinguishes this getter from sibling tools like apply, cancel, and acknowledge which modify or act on plans. It precisely describes what the tool returns.

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 verb 'Return' implies usage for retrieving plan state, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. Context from sibling names suggests this is the read-only getter among mutation plan operations, but the description does not state when to prefer this over other tools.

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