get_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns that output 'can be very large for complex plans,' which is valuable operational context. It also implies that the full plan is returned if filters are omitted. However, it does not describe the return structure or other behavioral nuances beyond size and filtering, so it's good but not exhaustive.

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 composed of three purposeful sentences: a clear statement of function, a size warning, and a recommendation for alternatives. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundancy, making it highly 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?

For a tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides essential guidance: it warns about large outputs and suggests a preferred alternative for overview understanding. While it doesn't detail the return format or edge cases, it covers the most critical contextual aspects for safe and effective use, making it complete enough for most scenarios.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains all six parameters. The description reinforces the purpose of node_ids/link_ids as filters but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Per the baseline for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Get PlanData for a project.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_plan_summary by warning that the full plan can be very large. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from related 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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'PREFER get_plan_summary to understand plan state' and 'Use node_ids/link_ids to fetch specific elements instead of the full plan.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives and how to scope the request, which is excellent for decision-making.

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