plan_list_vhf_plans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format options ('compact' or 'json') and that it returns VHF plans, but it doesn't describe pagination, filtering capabilities, ordering, or any side effects. For a read-only list operation, the lack of behavioral detail is a moderate gap, but the description does at least clarify the return format.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are clearly structured and easy to parse. It wastes no words, though the Returns section is somewhat redundant with the purpose statement.

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 has an output schema, which helps, and only one optional parameter. The description covers the parameter and the basic return format. However, it doesn't explain what a VHF plan is, how this differs from other plan list tools, or any filtering/pagination behavior. For a simple list tool this is adequate but not complete.

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. It does explain the 'format' parameter: 'Output format - 'compact' (default) or 'json''. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only shows a default value. However, it doesn't describe what 'compact' vs 'json' actually looks like in the response, and there are no enums in the schema to constrain valid values.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List VHF (High Frequency) plans.' This clearly identifies the tool's function. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like plan_list_plans, plan_list_vc2_plans, or plan_list_voc_plans, though the 'VHF' qualifier in the name and description provides some differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention that plan_list_plans might be a more general option, or that plan_list_vc2_plans and plan_list_voc_plans are for other plan types. The only usage hint is the format parameter, which is about output format, not about when to choose this tool.

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