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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the behavioral context that it confirms scope, which is useful but not extensive. It doesn't describe return format or potential errors, but with annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, and the key information (confirms workspace and plan) is front-loaded. 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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete. It could mention what specific details are returned (e.g., workspace ID, plan name), but the output schema likely covers that. The description is sufficient for an agent to 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns conceptually (workspace and plan scope), which is valuable since there are no parameters to document. Baseline 4 for zero params 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 tool's function: confirming the workspace and plan scope of the connection. It uses a specific verb ('confirms') and resource ('workspace and plan'), which is clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the unique scope (workspace/plan info) makes it distinguishable from the listed get_* tools.

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 context: use when you need to know the workspace/plan scope. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the tool's unique purpose and zero parameters, the implied usage is adequate. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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