get_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the return shape (next_gap, buffer semantics) and the empty-state behavior, which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of pagination or error behavior, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then usage, then the fallback path — good ordering. The first sentence is a dense list that runs long, but every clause (next_gap, buffer, ready posts) carries distinct information rather than filler.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it describes the returned fields, defines next_gap and buffer, and covers the no-plan empty state with the corrective next step. Nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific resource (the user's posting plan) and enumerates exactly what it contains: weekdays, slots in the next 14 days, next_gap, buffer, and ready posts with no time. This clearly separates it from set_plan (writes the plan) and get_post_queue (post statuses), so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives two concrete triggers: tying a new take or edit to a fillable slot, and suggesting a time when the user marks a post ready. It also handles the negative case explicitly — 'No plan yet: ask the user which days, then set_plan' — naming the sibling to call next.

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