plan_context

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

With no annotations, the description itself carries the behavioral burden and does so via the verb 'Read,' which signals non-mutation. It adds concrete behavioral context by describing the output shape (ChainScopes, inline changes, checkpoint gates, source refs) and compactness, though it does not discuss permissions or truncation behavior.

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 sentences, with the first enumerating the document contents in a dense list and the second giving the operational context. There is no filler.

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?

The output composition is well described and the primary use case is stated, which covers much of what an agent needs for a read tool. However, without an output schema or parameter explanations, the agent must infer how maxChars, locale, projectRoot, and includeStructured alter the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain locale, maxChars, projectRoot, or includeStructured effects. It only implies the plan id through 'Read one Plan'; the remaining four parameters are left to inference.

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 names a specific action ('Read one Plan') and a concrete deliverable ('compact hierarchical development document') with its contents enumerated. It stops short of naming a sibling read tool, so it doesn't fully differentiate from tools like context_for_task, but the 'primary read before implementing' phrasing anchors its 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?

'This is the primary read before implementing a Plan' is an explicit when-to-use instruction. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, so it misses the top anchor, but the timing/context is clear.

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