get_seat_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not explicitly state idempotency, lack of side effects, or any potential costs. The explanation of returned data adds some transparency.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the app context ('[WPCafe Pro]') and immediately states the purpose and key deliverables. No extraneous information, every word earns its place.

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 get tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers input (id) and output (table positions, capacities, shape data). It lacks a mention of the return format (e.g., a JSON object), but the listed fields give sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's result.

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?

The only parameter 'id' has its description in the schema ('Seat plan ID'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema (e.g., mentioning that the ID must refer to an existing plan). The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Get), the resource (seat plan), and the scope of data returned (table positions, capacities, shape data). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_seat_plans' (which returns all plans) or 'update_seat_plan'.

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?

The description implies usage when needing detailed data for one specific plan, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_reservation_capacity' or prerequisites. Contextual signals show many sibling tools, yet no exclusions or comparisons are given.

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