Current site plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned but does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, or whether it triggers side effects. The lack of an explicit read-only or idempotency signal is a gap for an agent assessing safety.

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?

The description is a single, tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core content (site plan, brief, timestamps) and omits redundant detail. Excellent economy of words.

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 retrieval tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description states the return contents adequately. However, it lacks usage context (when to call, what distinguishes it from plan-generation tools) and does not hint at the structure of the returned plan, which could matter for an agent deciding how to use the output. This is a minimum-viable description but leaves gaps.

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 100% for the single boolean parameter, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond that. Since the schema already documents 'include_sections', the description neither clarifies nor expands on it, matching the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool returns a stored site plan (pages and sections), the originating brief, and build/review timestamps. It names the resource and the fields returned, which is specific. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like sweipe_ai_plan or sweipe_ai_build, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sweipe_ai_plan (likely for generating a new plan) or sweipe_site_from_brief. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or any 'when not to use' conditions, leaving the agent to guess.

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