thinkneo-control-plane

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds 'Requires authentication' which is critical behavioral context not in annotations, and previews returned data concepts (spend vs limit, thresholds). Does not contradict annotations.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with main action ('Get current budget...'), followed by specific capabilities ('Shows spend vs limit...') and requirements ('Requires authentication'). 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?

Appropriate for a read-only status tool with existing output schema and annotations. Description covers authentication requirement and nature of returned data without needing to replicate output schema details. Sufficient for tool complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'workspace' parameter fully documented in schema ('Workspace name or ID to retrieve current budget status for'). Description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond schema, which meets baseline for high coverage.

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?

Clear verb 'Get' and specific resource 'budget utilization and enforcement status'. Lists specific data points (spend vs limit, thresholds, overage) that implicitly distinguish from simple spend checking, though does not explicitly differentiate from sibling thinkneo_check_spend.

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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like thinkneo_check_spend. While the specific capabilities listed (enforcement status, projections) imply appropriate use cases, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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