get-test-plan

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

The description states it is a read operation ('get'), but with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose behaviors such as whether the operation is safe, what permissions are needed, or what exactly 'details' encompasses. No output schema compounds the ambiguity.

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 very concise at one sentence, with no wasted words. While it is efficient, it could be slightly expanded to include result expectations without becoming verbose.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to describe what the returned 'details' include, leaving the agent uncertain about the result structure.

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 coverage is 100% since the single parameter 'id' is documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation but not enhancing 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 'Get test plan details by ID' clearly indicates the action (get) and the resource (test plan details) with a required identifier. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-test-plans' or 'get-test-plan-test-cases', though the purpose is straightforward for a single-entity retrieval.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, if the user needs a list of test plans, they should use 'list-test-plans' instead. The description lacks explicit usage context or exclusion criteria.

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