seedfast_plan_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (a text block with specific fields), error behavior for unknown IDs, and that no SEEDFAST_API_KEY is needed because it 'reads local session state.' This is solid coverage, though it could be even more explicit about side-effect-free/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 three sentences with no filler. The main action is first, return and error behavior come second, and usage/auth/next-steps are third. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure front-loads the most important information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the return contents, unknown-ID error, authentication/state requirements, intended use cases, and related next steps. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, and the schema already explains that planId is the plan ID as shown by seedfast_plans_list or returned by seedfast_plan / seedfast_plan_create. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond 'by ID,' so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Retrieves a single stored seeding plan by ID.' It clarifies the scope as one plan, distinct from list tools, and enumerates the returned contents (plan ID, scope, full table list, preview, timestamps), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like seedfast_plans_list.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'inspect a plan's table set before executing it' or 'show the user what a plan contains.' It also names follow-up alternatives (seedfast_run, seedfast_plan_update, seedfast_plan_delete). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as listing all plans via seedfast_plans_list, so it stops short of a 5.

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