plan_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the output shape (hierarchical document with ChainScopes, changes, gates, source refs) and the 'compact' nature, implying read-only behavior via 'Read.' It does not mention truncation effects from maxChars, error conditions, or permission requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 two tight sentences. The first enumerates the returned content in a compact list, and the second states usage priority without any filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior and usage timing well. But with 6 parameters, it leaves important context unexplained, such as what includeStructured does, how maxChars affects output, and what taskContextId/projectRoot are used for. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides useful domain context for what a 'Plan' is, which gives meaning to the id parameter. However, it does not explain locale, maxChars, projectRoot, taskContextId, or includeStructured; these remain semantically opaque despite visible schema defaults and enums.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one Plan as a compact hierarchical development document.' It enumerates the exact content (overview, ChainScopes, Block/Link/Chain changes, checkpoint gates, exact source refs), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like context_for_task or chain_code_stream. The final sentence, 'This is the primary read before implementing a Plan,' reinforces its distinct role.

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 gives clear timing guidance: use this before implementing a Plan, and calls it the 'primary read.' However, it does not name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls short of fully explicit exclusion guidance.

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