Read dimensions, tags and notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds some behavioral detail like the structure of `stale` output, but it contradicts the annotation by calling it 'Plan annotations, read' which is fine, but the annotation says readOnlyHint true; description says 'edit_annotations switches modes' which is a different tool, not a contradiction. However, the behavioral transparency is low because it doesn't disclose important traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or side effects. It does add context about what 'stale' means, which is good, but with annotations covering safety, the bar is lower, yet this description still misses key behavioral aspects.

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 run-on sentence with multiple clauses and parentheticals, making it hard to parse. It is not front-loaded well; the key purpose is buried in jargon. It lacks clear structure and could be broken into bullet points or shorter sentences.

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 complexity (read tool with two optional parameters, output schema exists), the description covers some aspects but misses important context like prerequisites, side effects (none expected), and how it relates to other annotation tools. It provides details on `stale` and `q` but not enough to fully understand the tool's behavior in typical workflows.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (`q` and `stale`). The description adds some semantic meaning: for `stale`, it elaborates on the return format and what counts as stale; for `q`, it mentions case/accent insensitivity and regex. However, it doesn't go beyond the schema significantly, and with full coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Plan annotations, read,' which states the verb and resource, and elaborates on what it reads (dimensions, tags, notes). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling `edit_annotations` beyond a brief mention that `edit_annotations` switches modes – it doesn't state that this tool is read-only and the other is write, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides clear context by mentioning when to use `stale=true` and when to use `q`, and even points to `edit_annotations` for edits. Yet it doesn't explicitly say when not to use this tool or compare it to other read tools like `show_plan` or `measure`.

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