bing_plan_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that the tool never applies the plan, and that verification/delegation secrets in the returned arguments are replaced with a redaction placeholder while the plan still applies with the real value — a non-obvious output quirk an agent would otherwise misread.

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?

Four sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, non-mutation guarantee, routing rule, redaction caveat. Front-loaded with the core action. Slightly dense but no sentence is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly explains what comes back (the plan's arguments and the applying command). Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this 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?

There is one required parameter (plan_id) at 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It implies the identifier selects 'one recorded plan' but never states the format, source, or where an agent obtains a valid plan_id, leaving the parameter largely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show one recorded plan for review') and immediately scopes it with 'This never applies it.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling (bing_plan_list) rather than leaving that inference to the agent.

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?

Gives an explicit positive trigger ('when the user wants one plan's arguments and the command that would apply it') and an explicit negative one ('Do not use this to list every plan; call bing_plan_list'), naming the alternative by name. Both the when and the when-not are covered.

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