bing_plan_list

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

Annotations cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is already clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations state, mainly that results include plan states rather than just plan names.

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?

A single, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds meaning, and there is no redundant elaboration.

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 parameterless listing operation, the description is complete: the agent knows what the tool returns (recorded plans and their current states) and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. No output schema is needed to call it 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so parameter semantics do not require compensation. The description clearly explains the returned scope, which is sufficient given no parameters exist.

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?

"List recorded plans and their current states" uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from mutation and configuration tools like bing_plan_add_site or bing_plan_save_crawl_settings. It also differentiates from the per-plan view implied by bing_plan_show.

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 clearly implies this is the right tool when you need an overview of recorded plans and their statuses, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since it is a list operation, the usage context is reasonably inferable.

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