plans

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavior: the request view 'solves nothing', forgotten plans remain discoverable, and the v14 -> base_rev=14 mapping to mutation tools. Return shape and pagination behavior are not described.

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 list-then-single-plan distinction is front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence is a dense run of clauses joined by semicolons and commas ('prints the stored arguments, what the selectors resolved to and the siting, solving nothing; a forgotten plan is found too') that takes effort to parse.

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?

Seven optional parameters, 57% schema coverage and no output schema mean the description has to do real work, and it covers the two modes plus the version convention. It leaves the as_of/save pinning, limit behavior, and what fields come back for a version list unexplained.

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 57%, and the description carries the most important semantics: name selects single-plan mode and show='request' switches the view. However, save, as_of, limit, and world are left entirely to their (partly absent) schema descriptions, and 'since' is explained only in the schema. Adequate but incomplete compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource: list this world's saved plans, or one plan's versions when name is given. The two modes are clearly delimited, and edit_plan is named as the mutating counterpart. The parenthetical 'world moved?' is jargon that only a returning user would parse, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 says what show='request' is for ('prints the stored arguments, what the selectors resolved to and the siting, solving nothing') and routes renames/forgets/undoes/restores to edit_plan. It also states the cross-tool convention of passing the version as base_rev. It stops short of saying when to use this versus diff_vs_save or plan_from_factory.

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