get_plan

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the optional exclude_fields behavior in detail, including the default mechanism and override. However, it lacks info on error handling, permissions, or response format (though output schema exists).

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 concise but uses a multi-line Args format. It front-loads the purpose and each sentence adds value. Slightly verbose for a simple tool, but efficient overall.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, one optional) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects. The exclude_fields nuance is fully explained, making the description complete.

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 coverage is 0%, but description adds significant meaning: plan_id is linked to list_plans for ID discovery, and exclude_fields is explained with three use cases (omit, empty list, custom list). This goes well beyond the schema's minimal definitions.

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 retrieves details for a specific plan (verb+resource). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_plans (which lists IDs) and get_plan_settings (which retrieves settings).

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?

It advises using list_plans to find plan IDs and explains the exclude_fields parameter behavior (default, empty list, custom list). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools beyond list_plans, but the context is clear.

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