get_plan_summary

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 read-only nature ('read plan state'), the output components, and a performance characteristic ('much smaller than get_plan'). While it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, 'read' strongly implies no mutation, and the detail on output is strong. A 4 is appropriate for the lack of explicit side-effect confirmation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the essential purpose ('PREFERRED way to read plan state'), includes a detailed but efficient list of returned data, and provides a clear comparison and usage directive. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it tells the agent what the tool returns, how to use it, and when to choose an alternative. It lacks only minor error/edge-case details, which are not expected for this simple read operation.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (project_id described as 'Project UUID'), and the description adds no additional meaning beyond that. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is suitable; no extra param context is needed.

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 purpose: reading plan state via a summary. It explicitly lists what is returned (components, bundles, conductors, branch points, unconnected pins, warnings) and distinguishes itself from get_plan by noting it's 'much smaller'. This goes beyond a generic verb+resource and directly differentiates from key sibling 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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'PREFERRED way to read plan state' and 'use this first, only fetch full plan if you need raw data for specific elements.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus get_plan, fulfilling the dimension completely.

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