tasks_list_planner_plans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar for adding behavioral context is lower. The description goes beyond by noting that Premium plans are not available through Graph and that Tasks.Read permission is required, adding meaningful operational caveats without contradicting the annotations.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by brief contextual notes on team vs. private tasks, downstream use of plan ids, premium limitation, and permission. Every sentence serves a purpose, though slightly longer than necessary, earning a 4.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, alternatives, permissions, and a Graph-specific limitation. Combined with the annotations, this gives the agent all needed context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema fully documents max_results with a description ('Maximum plans to return'), so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The tool description does not add further detail about the parameter, but with 100% coverage, 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 clearly states the tool's function: listing Microsoft Planner plans visible to the signed-in user, including id and title. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by contrasting Planner with To Do and referencing tasks_list_todo_lists and tasks_list_planner_tasks, making the specific purpose and scope unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool: for team work in Planner, versus private tasks in To Do, and notes that plan ids feed tasks_list_planner_tasks. This provides clear usage context and directs users to the appropriate alternative, satisfying the 'when/when-not' guidance.

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