iptime_list_plans

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. The phrase 'current state' adds a small behavioral hint about output content, but it does not explain open-world behavior, output richness, or any other runtime characteristics.

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 one short sentence with no filler and front-loads the action and object. It is concise, though slightly underspecified enough that it does not reach a top score.

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 tool is low-complexity with one optional, well-documented parameter and annotations that cover safety. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify what a 'plan' is, what fields are returned, or how the optional router_id affects the result, leaving some practical gaps.

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 single optional parameter is fully described in the schema ('Configured router id; optional when exactly one router exists'). The description itself does not mention router_id, but with 100% schema description coverage, the schema carries the parameter semantics adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('plans'), and adds 'current state' to convey the kind of output. It is reasonably distinct from sibling tools like iptime_status and iptime_list_operations, though it could more explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as iptime_list_operations or iptime_status. It also omits any conditions, prerequisites, or context about when plan listing is relevant.

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