panorama_get_plan_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that by listing exactly what is and is never returned: safe target label/hash only, never plan/candidate hashes, XPath values, mutation XML, or secret slot names. This is valuable behavioral disclosure for an agent deciding whether the tool is safe to invoke.

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 concise and front-loaded: the READ-ONLY marker and the first sentence immediately establish purpose. There is minor redundancy in repeating 'Returns safe', but overall every clause earns its place and the text is easy to scan.

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 no output schema, the description provides a useful high-level statement of the return value (safe target label/hash) and explicitly lists exclusions. It could define what 'lifecycle metadata' concretely includes, but for a read-only status tool with fully documented parameters, this is sufficient for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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%, so both plan_id and firewall are already documented structurally. The description does not add parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable given the schema fully covers the parameters.

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 ('returns') and a specific resource ('safe lifecycle metadata for one active Panorama provisioning plan'), which distinguishes it from list-style and operation-style siblings at a high level. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as panorama_list_active_plans or panorama_get_operation_status, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The safety framing ('READ-ONLY', 'never returns...') implies it is appropriate for safe status checks, but it does not say when to prefer it over related plan/operation tools.

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