get_resource_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds value by detailing what the plan includes (bookings, person, project, hours/day, utilisation %), going beyond the annotation to inform the agent about the content. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant words. The first sentence defines the action and data, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place; very efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (4 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the return data (bookings with key fields) and how to filter. No gap is apparent; it fully prepares an agent to use the 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds the phrase 'focused planning views' to suggest the purpose of person_name and project_id, adding slight value beyond the schema descriptions. No explicit format or semantics beyond schema, but the coverage is high.

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 the tool retrieves the rb2 resource plan for a date range and specifies the data shown (bookings with person, project, hours/day, utilisation %). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bookings or get_overbooked_people by focusing on a planning view with detailed metrics.

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 advises using person_name and project_id for focused planning views, providing clear context for parameter usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, which would further enhance guidance.

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