list_plans

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists plans along with their in-progress tasks and surfaces claim ownership ('what is already claimed, by whom'), which goes beyond a bare 'list' statement. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or auth requirements, but the described behavior is clear.

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 three sentences long, with the core purpose in the first sentence and usage context following. There is no redundancy or fluff; every sentence adds either functional scope or actionable guidance, and the structure front-loads the primary function.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers what it returns (named plans with in_progress tasks, claim ownership) and when it should be called (before claim work under concurrency). Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the tool 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 has zero parameters, and the schema shows 100% coverage by vacuity. As a result, there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, and the baseline score of 4 applies because the description is not required to add parameter detail.

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 clearly states a specific action ('List') and resource ('named Plans in this Blackboard root'), and specifies that each plan includes its in_progress tasks. This makes the tool's purpose obvious, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like read_plan or get_server_info.

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 a concrete usage scenario: 'Check this before claiming work when multiple actors may be active.' It also explains what the tool reveals (what is claimed and by whom), which helps the agent decide when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools.

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