get_test_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a retrieval operation ('get') and specifies what it returns, which is enough to infer it is read-only and non-destructive. It does not mention potential side effects or response size, but for a getter with a single parameter, this is adequate.

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, clearly structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Get the full element tree') and then adds contextual detail (ids and their use). Every word serves a purpose with no fluff.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (the full element tree, including ids and types) and why it matters (for parentId). It gives an agent enough to decide when and how to call it correctly.

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 schema has one parameter (planId) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explicitly explain what planId is, though it is easily inferred as the identifier of the test plan from the context. It adds no direct parameter detail, but the single, self-explanatory parameter name mitigates the weak coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Get the full element tree') and a specific resource ('a test plan'), and clarifies it returns every node's id and type. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_test_plans (which lists plans) and get_execution_report (which reports execution results), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly mentions that node ids are needed as parentId for add_* tools, giving a clear reason to use this tool before making structural modifications. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the context of adding nodes is clear, and the sibling tools for execution vs. structure are implicitly separated.

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