plan_list_plans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the compact-versus-json output behavior, the default compact format, and the optional plan_type filter. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation, but those are minor gaps for a simple list tool.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a single high-value note about token usage, and a terse Args/Returns block. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant caveats.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters, no enums, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, defaults, and return format. The only notable gap is lack of explicit routing to sibling tools like plan_list_vc2_plans or plan_search_plans_by_specs, but that is not necessary to invoke this tool 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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains plan_type with concrete examples ('all', 'vc2', 'vhf', 'voc') and format as either compact table or json with full details, adding real value beyond the bare schema. Exact allowed values for plan_type remain slightly open-ended, but the semantics are clear.

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 opens with a clear verb and object, 'List all available plans,' and immediately scopes the operation with optional plan_type filtering and output format. It is clearly about listing plans, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like plan_list_vc2_plans or plan_search_plans_by_specs.

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 when-to-use versus alternatives guidance is given; none of the sibling plan-list or plan-search tools are mentioned. The only usage hint is that compact format reduces token usage, which advises on output representation rather than tool selection.

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