get_current_plan

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds scope context (single active plan, this week's log, no platform calendar), which is real added value. It does not mention what happens when no plan is in progress or whether the result is empty/null.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core scope front-loaded and the v0 limitation appended. No filler, though the extreme terseness leaves several points implicit.

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-value explanation is not required, and the annotations cover safety. What remains under-specified is the date parameter's role and what the tool returns when no active plan exists — gaps an agent would hit at invocation time.

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?

Only one optional 'date' parameter exists, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should clarify it. "读取当前日期覆盖的" hints that the date drives lookup, but it never says the parameter overrides 'today' or what format/behavior applies. Partial compensation only.

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 states a specific verb+resource: reading the single in-progress plan covering the current date plus this week's log. It also scopes the tool by noting it does not read platform calendars, which helps separate it from siblings like get_overview. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for calendar data.

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 an explicit exclusion ("v0 不读取平台日程"), which tells the agent one case where not to rely on this tool. However, no positive when-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named for the calendar/schedule case among the siblings (get_overview, query_activities, etc.).

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