Get a Plan with its Buckets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating that bucket IDs are required for task operations and that the tool returns both plan and buckets, which is useful given the lack of an output schema.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence adds relevant context without fluff. Every word contributes meaning.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (plan and buckets) and why it matters (bucket IDs for task operations). The schema covers parameter details, so no critical information is missing.

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 100%, as both parameters have descriptions: 'Plan ID' and 'Output format...'. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'a Planner plan and its buckets,' which clearly states the tool's function. It also differentiates from sibling tools like planner_create_bucket and planner_list_plans by specifying that buckets are part of the returned data.

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 a clear use context: 'Bucket IDs are needed to create or move tasks,' indicating when this tool is necessary. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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