liara_get_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get details' which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description is minimal and lacks context beyond the basic action, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.

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 complexity (a read operation with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, the response structure, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool that likely returns structured plan information, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (parameter 'planId' is described as 'The plan ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what a plan ID is, how to obtain it, or format requirements. It relies entirely on the schema for parameter documentation.

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 'Get details of a specific plan' clearly states the action (get) and resource (plan), but it's vague about what 'details' entail. It distinguishes from siblings like 'liara_list_plans' by specifying retrieval of a single plan, but lacks specificity about the type of details returned (e.g., pricing, features, limits).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for retrieving a single plan by ID, but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a plan ID from 'liara_list_plans'), exclusions, or comparisons to other get tools (e.g., 'liara_get_app'). Usage is implied but not clearly articulated.

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