thinkneo-control-plane

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety traits. It adds value by disclosing the authentication requirement and summarizing the return structure (cost breakdown by provider/model/period). However, it omits rate limits, caching behavior, or error conditions (e.g., invalid workspace).

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 three sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Check AI spend summary'), follows with return value description, and ends with the auth requirement. Every sentence 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated) and 100% input schema coverage, the description appropriately provides a high-level summary rather than detailed field documentation. However, it lacks differentiation from financial siblings (particularly thinkneo_get_budget_status) and doesn't clarify the operational scope limitations (workspace-only filtering).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema itself documents all five parameters comprehensively (including the conditional logic for start_date/end_date). The description mentions 'workspace, team, or project' which loosely maps to the workspace parameter and group_by options, but doesn't add syntax details, format examples, or clarify the relationship between period and date parameters beyond what's in the schema.

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 'Check[s] AI spend summary' with specific breakdown dimensions (provider, model, time period). However, it slightly conflates filtering scope by mentioning 'team, or project' as targets when the schema only supports workspace-level filtering with team/project as grouping dimensions (group_by parameter), and doesn't differentiate from the similar sibling thinkneo_get_budget_status.

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 notes 'Requires authentication' as a prerequisite but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like thinkneo_get_budget_status (which also deals with financial data) or when to use custom date ranges versus preset periods. No exclusions or prerequisites beyond auth are mentioned.

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