bing_plan_show

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's added value is the operational clarification that this shows a plan without applying it. This is meaningful because several sibling tools perform plan mutations and submissions.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The primary behavior comes first, and the important 'never applies it' disclaimer is immediately after.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it says what the tool does, what it does not do, and how to use it safely. The main omission is return-shape guidance, which would be more important if an output schema were absent and the tool showed complex structured plan data.

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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining plan_id semantics. It only implies that plan_id identifies a recorded plan and does not explain where the ID comes from, expected format, or any relationship to bing_plan_list. This under-compensates for the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and a specific resource 'one recorded plan', and explicitly contrasts it with applying a plan. This makes the tool's role immediately clear and separates it from plan actions and plan list 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?

'For review' clearly defines the intended use, and 'This never applies it' warns against using this as an execution/apply step. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like bing_plan_list, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to orient correctly.

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