get_draft_plan

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that the tool rejects plans outside the draft namespace and returns both plan and workouts, providing context beyond read-only behavior.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the main purpose and constraint. It is front-loaded and without unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 and minimal parameters. The description covers the return content and namespace restriction, which is sufficient for a simple get operation. No missing critical details.

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 description does not mention the single parameter plan_id or provide any additional meaning beyond the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining the parameter's role or format.

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 reads a managed plan and its workouts, specifically for draft plans. The verb 'Read' and resource 'managed plan and its workouts' are precise, and the constraint 'reject plans outside the draft namespace' distinguishes it from other plan retrieval tools.

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 implies usage for draft plans only but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_draft_plans or get_training_context. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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