get_plan_source_info

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explains the return shape ({active, available, version}) and that it is a read-only retrieval of the source and adapters. It does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, but the read-only nature is implied. A 5 would require explicit mention of no mutation or error 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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second provides usage guidance and indicates the return format. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It explains the output structure, the source of the active source (env var), and the rationale for ordering. There is no missing information needed for an agent to use the tool 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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the return value contains and why it should be called first. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets it.

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 clearly states it returns the active initiative source and all adapters built into the server. The verb 'Return' and specific resources ('active initiative source', 'all adapters') make the action unambiguous. The mention of 'PLAN_SOURCE env var' distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on initiatives directly.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Call first in any session so the AI knows whether to expect markdown / Linear / JIRA / Notion semantics.' This sets a clear precondition and informs the AI about the tool's role as a session initializer. It implicitly defines when not to use (after session context is established) and provides the rationale for calling it.

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