Get plan constants

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the exact API endpoint and mentions that there are no body fields, reinforcing the read-only nature. This is sufficient given that annotations cover the safety profile, and the tool is a simple GET.

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, with three short sentences. It front-loads the purpose and HTTP endpoint, then provides a reference link. No unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly expanded to include return format or usage guidance.

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 is relatively simple, and the description includes the endpoint and reference. However, it lacks information about return format, pagination specifics (which are partly in the schema), and any required permissions. Given the availability of an API reference link, the agent can find details if needed, but the description could be more self-contained.

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 50%, meaning the query parameter is documented in the schema (offset, limit, pagination behavior). The description does not add additional semantics for parameters; the path parameter (planId) is clear from its name and schema. The schema already covers query parameters well, so the description doesn't need to add more.

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 that the tool retrieves plan constants and includes the HTTP endpoint. It is distinct from related tools like xmatters_create_plan_constant and xmatters_modify_plan_constant, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 the endpoint and hints that it is a read operation (GET), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other constant-related tools (e.g., for creating or modifying constants). The agent can infer usage from the HTTP verb and endpoint, but there's no explicit guidance on prerequisites or scenarios.

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