get_workspace_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Get the current plan' with no mention of what the return value looks like, whether this requires admin/owner privileges, or whether it reflects a free/trial/paid tier. For a read-only retrieval with zero annotation coverage, more context is needed.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded but is underspecified — it's a complete sentence with no waste, yet it doesn't convey enough context given the minimal annotation coverage. It's appropriate for length but leaves gaps in information density.

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 one simple parameter, 100% schema coverage, and a read-only operation, the description is mostly adequate. However, no output schema and no annotations mean the description should clarify what 'plan' entails (e.g., tier, limits, billing) to help the agent know if the return matches the user's intent. Minimum viable, with clear room for improvement.

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%, meaning team_id is already documented as 'The workspace/team ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles the parameter documentation fully.

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?

Description states 'Get the current plan for a workspace' — a specific verb+resource combination that clearly identifies the retrieval of a workspace's subscription/plan. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_workspace (general workspace info) and get_workspaces (list). Clear enough though it doesn't explicitly note scope limitations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus get_workspace or get_workspace, no mention of required access levels or contexts where plan info would be relevant. The agent must infer usage from the name and sibling set.

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