read_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, error behavior, permission requirements, or any conditional logic. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the literal action, leaving assumptions to the agent.

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 sentence with no waste, front-loading the action 'Read' and clearly stating the object and the optional modifier. It is appropriately sized for the tool's low complexity and conveys the core functionality efficiently.

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 read tool with an output schema, the description is adequate. It tells the agent that one plan is read and optionally filtered by role, and the schema provides parameter defaults and return structure. Missing details like error handling are not critical for a typical read operation, and the output schema reduces the need for the description to explain return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that plan_id selects the plan and role is an optional filter, which maps to the two parameters. However, it does not explain the default values ('project' and null) or the exact effect of role on task filtering, leaving some ambiguity about how role influences the returned tasks.

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 the action (Read), the target (one Plan), and includes the nuanced detail of executable tasks, optionally filtered by Role. This distinguishes it from list_plans (which lists plans) and validate_plan (which checks validity), making the tool's specific purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is used when you need details of a specific plan, but it does not explicitly discuss when to choose this over siblings like list_plans or validate_plan, nor does it list exclusions. An agent can infer usage from the purpose, but there is no direct comparison or contextual guidance.

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