list_plans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It documents the exclude_fields parameter behavior (default, override, all fields) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or error handling.

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 structured with a summary sentence followed by parameter documentation. It is informative but could be more concise; the 'Args' section adds length but is justified given the parameter complexity.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so description need not explain return values. Parameter documentation is thorough. However, it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations.

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 provides 0% description coverage for the only parameter (exclude_fields). The description fully compensates by explaining that omitting the parameter uses the model's default exclude list, passing an empty array returns all fields, and a custom list overrides the default.

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 lists all plans in the user's YNAB account and is to be called first to obtain plan IDs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_plan, which retrieves a single plan.

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 states 'Call this first to get plan IDs,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives beyond the implied workflow.

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