get_native_viewer_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the crucial behavioral trait that the command is never executed, which is essential because the tool name could suggest running it. It also hints at the 'installed' status, implying a dependency on the environment.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place, and the key behavior (return but not execute) is placed upfront.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the helpful annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves ambiguity about the meaning of 'native viewer command' and the role of artifact_id. It does not fully compensate for the lack of parameter semantics, but the overall context is sufficient for a basic understanding.

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 0% description coverage for artifact_id, and the description provides no information about what 'artifact_id' refers to or how it relates to the native viewer command. The single parameter's role is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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 specifies the verb 'Return' and the resource 'installed native viewer command', and explicitly clarifies 'never execute', which distinguishes it from execution-oriented sibling tools like execute_capture_plan. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose statement.

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 phrase 'but never execute' provides clear context that this tool is for planning/intent retrieval rather than execution, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving a minor gap in guidance.

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