get_test_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot express — that the payload embeds linked test runs and Jira issues, and that 'fields' can narrow it, letting an agent avoid extra round trips. It stops short of disclosing permissions, error behavior for a missing key, or payload size concerns.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and endpoint, followed by the two most decision-relevant facts (embedded links, field narrowing). The trailing 'Returns the test plan object as the API sends it' is somewhat filler given there is no output schema to explain, but it is a single short clause.

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 two-parameter read-only getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly — key-based lookup plus what the response contains. It could go further by stating behavior on a missing/invalid key or noting that omitted fields return the full object.

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% — both 'testPlanKey' (with example PROJ-P123) and the comma-separated semantics of 'fields' are already documented in the schema. The description's 'narrow it with fields' adds only a marginal restatement, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+identifier ('Read a test plan by key') and even names the underlying endpoint (GET /testplan/{testPlanKey}), which clearly separates it from a bulk/search tool. It does not explicitly name the nearest sibling (search_test_plans), so an agent must infer that 'by key' is the differentiator.

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?

Use is implied by 'by key' and by the note that 'fields' narrows the payload, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. search_test_plans or get_test_run) for the case where the caller lacks a key.

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