list_plans

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states an outcome (a tree with counts) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it recurses into all levels of the tree, any pagination limits, or permissions required. This is minimal and leaves significant behavior inferred.

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, compact phrase with no filler or redundant wording. It immediately communicates the core output (tree of plans with counts) in an efficient manner. Given the simple interface (one parameter), this level of conciseness is appropriate.

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?

Although the tool has an output schema that defines return values, the description omits the crucial meaning of the 'handle' parameter, without which the agent cannot correctly invoke the tool. It also lacks any context about scope (e.g., all plans or a subset) or how the tree is constructed. The lack of parameter guidance makes the definition 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 required parameter, 'handle', but the description does not explain what this handle refers to (e.g., a plan ID, a parent node, an owner). With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it completely ignores the parameter. The agent cannot determine what value to supply.

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 'Дерево планов с числом объектов на каждом' clearly indicates a list operation on plans, specifying the structure (tree) and the included information (object counts). It distinguishes this from siblings like get_plan (single plan retrieval) and find_on_plans (search), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_plan, find_on_plans, or list_objects. There is no mention of intended use cases, required prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be preferred. The agent is left without direction.

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