读取执行计划

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds useful context: the plan is the 'current' one held 'in memory', indicating a volatile, point-in-time snapshot rather than a persisted artifact. This adds value beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 short sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no filler. The key qualifiers 'current' and 'in-memory' are front-loaded, making the definition highly scannable.

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, parameterless, read-only tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, its source, and its temporal scope. It does not describe the return shape or behavior when no execution plan exists, but the low complexity and readOnlyHint annotation make this a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('返回'/returns) and a clear resource ('当前内存中的执行计划'/current in-memory execution plan), making the tool's purpose immediately apparent. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like update_plan, which modify the plan rather than read it.

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 description provides clear context by specifying that this tool retrieves the current in-memory execution plan, implying it should be used for read-only inspection. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the read/write distinction from sibling tools is evident.

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