Pb Plan Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the bar is lower — and the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: returned Jira text must be treated as data, not instructions, which matters for an open-world tool ingesting user content. It stops short of noting response-size cost of raising `detail`, but that is minor against the annotation coverage.

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 fragments, zero filler, with the substantive content up front. It could be tightened into a proper sentence with a verb, but nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still missing for correct selection: what `plan_id` identifies, how the detail levels differ, and why an agent would pick this over pb_forecast or pb_milestones given the overlapping content.

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 coverage is only 50%: `plan_id` carries no description anywhere, and `detail`'s only schema text is the tautology 'Response detail.' The description does not compensate — it never mentions plan_id or explains what summary/standard/full actually change in the response.

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 enumerates concrete outputs — status counts, blocked work, forecast vs. target, milestones at risk — which makes clear this is a read-only status roll-up for a plan. However it is a noun-phrase list with no verb and, critically, it does not differentiate from siblings whose names cover the same ground (pb_forecast, pb_milestones, pb_critical_path, pb_warnings).

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives despite heavy topical overlap with pb_forecast and pb_milestones. The prompt-injection sentence is a safety note, not usage guidance.

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