Fetch a saved plan by its ID to inspect the original proposal and execution evidence, verifying completed accounting steps.
Inspect a saved proposal and its execution evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| planId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these, such as what the output format is or any side effects. It only repeats the read-only nature implicitly through 'inspect', which doesn't exceed 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 a single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't specify what the agent will receive upon inspection, how to interpret the execution evidence, or any error conditions. Given the sibling list, it doesn't clarify the tool's unique role, making it incomplete.
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 one parameter, planId, with no description and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explicitly state that planId is the identifier of the saved proposal, only implying it via 'saved proposal'. This is insufficient to clarify parameter meaning, especially given the UUID format.
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 states a specific verb 'inspect' with a resource 'saved proposal' and adds 'execution evidence', which clarifies the tool's focus. It distinguishes from siblings like billy_list or billy_get by implying a detailed inspection of a single proposal's evidence, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like billy_get or billy_status. The description gives no context for selection, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.