plan_read

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a read-only operation, and the description confirms this with 'Read'. No additional behavioral details (e.g., side effects, rate limits) are provided, but the annotation covers the key aspect.

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, focused sentence that conveys the core functionality and a key alternative without any redundant or tangential information.

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?

The description does not explain what a 'plan revision' is, what the return value looks like (no output schema), or the default behavior when 'revision' is omitted. It also leaves the 'compare_to' parameter undefined. This lack of context may cause an agent to misuse the tool.

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 schema has a nested 'request' object with project_id, revision, and compare_to, but the description provides no explanation of these parameters. The only mention is 'compare_to' in a usage context, but its semantics (e.g., what values it accepts, what it does) are undefined. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate.

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 tool reads a complete plan revision, and explicitly mentions the compare_to option for differences. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's 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 provides guidance on when to use compare_to instead of reading the full plan, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools. The guidance is implicit but useful for selecting the appropriate invocation.

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