thinkneo-control-plane

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

Annotations indicate read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description is consistent with 'Get' and 'Shows'. It adds valuable context beyond annotations by noting the authentication requirement and previewing specific output content (governance score, pending actions, compliance gaps), helping the agent understand what data will be returned even though an output schema exists.

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 efficiently structured: purpose statement first, followed by output preview, then authentication requirement. Every sentence provides distinct value without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. Appropriate length for the tool's complexity.

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 complete schema annotations (100% coverage), output schema, and safety hints (readOnly/idempotent), the description provides sufficient high-level context. It appropriately focuses on purpose and prerequisites rather than duplicating structured data, though it could slightly improve by hinting at relationship to sibling governance tools.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not explicitly discuss the parameters (workspace, framework) or their semantics, relying entirely on the schema's detailed descriptions. No additional parameter guidance (e.g., format hints, examples) is provided in the description text.

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 retrieves 'compliance and audit readiness status' and specifies the target resource (workspace). It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_policy or check_spend by specifying outputs unique to compliance (governance score, compliance gaps), though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 siblings like thinkneo_check_policy or thinkneo_evaluate_guardrail. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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