willys_plan_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the tool is read-only and changes neither plan nor cart, which is a key safety guarantee. It also describes the informational output (products, costs, pending surplus choices). It doesn't cover auth requirements or error behavior, but for a read-only status tool this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a safety note and a sequencing instruction. Every sentence provides essential value with no filler. Excellent structure.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return content (products, quantities, costs, pending choices), usage order, and side-effect safety. It doesn't address edge cases like missing plans or invalid sessions, but it provides sufficient context for a status tool with simple parameters.

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 already covers 75% of parameters (plan, preferTight, acceptSurplus are described; sessionId is not). The description adds no direct parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'surplus choices' generally. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description neither improves nor detracts significantly.

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 the specific verb 'Visa' (show) and identifies the resource (the plan). It clearly enumerates what is displayed: required items, proposed product and quantity per item, cost, and pending surplus choices. It also differentiates from willys_plan_apply by explicitly saying 'Kör detta innan willys_plan_apply'.

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 explicit sequencing guidance: 'Kör detta innan willys_plan_apply' (run before applying). It also states that it is read-only, implying it should be used to inspect state before mutation. However, it doesn't mention alternative read tools or when not to use it beyond this context.

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