get_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only retrieval, whether authentication or special permissions are required, what happens if the plan does not exist, or that pagination is applied. The only hint, 'by pages', is not elaborated.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not front-load or convey the essential information an agent needs; it reads as a fragment that raises more questions than it answers.

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 four parameters, two required, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to specify the core action, the required identifiers, when to use it, or any behavioral expectations, leaving the agent without sufficient context to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It mentions none of the four parameters (handle, plan_uid, limit, offset). The parameter names offer some hint, but the description adds zero value in clarifying their meaning or usage.

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 is a noun phrase ('Plan with a list of objects drawn on it...') lacking an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'gets'. The agent must infer the action from the name. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like list_plans or get_object, making the purpose vague.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_plans (listing plans) or get_object (retrieving a single object). There is no context about scenarios that favor this tool.

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