plan_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: using compare_to returns differences 'without full maps,' implying a lighter payload and different response shape.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the compare_to tip follows immediately, making the most important guidance prominent.

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-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers the main operation and the key behavioral mode. It lacks explicit mention of default revision behavior, but the core usage context is sufficiently complete.

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 explains compare_to meaning and implies that revision is the plan revision to read, but it doesn't clarify what revision=null means (e.g., latest) or elaborate project_id. Partial compensation, not full.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read a complete plan revision.' It clearly identifies the core operation and the compare_to mode, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like plan_edit or plan_publish by name.

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 gives explicit guidance for when to use compare_to: for differences without full maps. This tells the agent how to choose between default full-read behavior and diff mode. It doesn't mention alternative tools, but the read-only purpose is apparent.

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