jd_get_work_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the breadth of the payload (field, work type, status, instructions, operations and assignments), which is the key signal for choosing a heavyweight single-record fetch over a list call.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the verb+resource and followed immediately by payload scope and ID sourcing. No filler sentences; every clause adds routing or expectation-setting value.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, payload breadth, and how to obtain both required IDs. It omits only edge behavior such as what happens for an unknown erid or cross-org access restrictions, which is a minor gap.

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 100% and the schema descriptions already state the provenance of both IDs ("from jd_list_work_plans", "from jd_list_organizations"), so the description's sourcing note is largely duplicative. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the full record of one work plan") and scopes it to a single plan, which cleanly separates it from the sibling jd_list_work_plans. It also enumerates what the record contains, so an agent knows this is the detailed single-record counterpart to the list tool.

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?

Gives concrete prerequisite routing: get `org_id` from jd_list_organizations and `erid` from jd_list_work_plans, which tells the agent exactly how to reach a callable state. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g. vs. the list tool for bulk retrieval), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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