List AI plans

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

Annotations already establish it is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description goes well beyond that: it defines the state lifecycle (pending/generating/generated/validated/failed/cancelled), guarantees archived plans are never mixed in, and discloses that plan creation is disabled unless PLANVORTEX_MCP_ALLOW_AI=1 because it spends AI credits.

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?

Purpose and ordering are front-loaded, followed by state semantics, then the archived and creation-gating notes. Every sentence carries information, though the closing instructions about editing the user's MCP env block are somewhat tangential and lengthen an otherwise tight block.

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-shape detail is not required, and the description supplies the interpretation keys that matter (state meanings, archived separation). Nothing an agent needs in order to call this list tool correctly is missing.

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%, and the description adds real nuance for archived ('INSTEAD of the active ones') and context for the organization scoping. However, limit and offset are undocumented in both schema and description, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: AI-generated publication plans of an organization, ordered newest first. It also enumerates the possible states, which lets an agent distinguish it from get_ai_plan and get_ai_plan_results (single-plan and results lookups) without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance for the archived case ('Archived plans are a separate listing, never mixed in: pass archived true for those') and explains the create_ai_plan gating condition. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over a single-plan sibling like get_ai_plan, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not coverage.

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