thinkneo-control-plane

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

The annotation declares readOnlyHint: true, and the description aligns with this ('List'). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation: it specifies 'active' status (scope/temporal filtering), lists content categories to expect, and notes authentication requirements. It does not contradict the read-only nature.

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 consists of three sentences with zero waste: sentence one establishes core purpose, sentence two specifies content types (high value add), and sentence three states authentication requirements. Information is front-loaded appropriately with the primary action stated first.

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 existence of an output schema (covering return values), 100% parameter schema coverage, and readOnly annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It adequately explains what the tool returns (the four alert types) without needing to detail return structure. It meets completeness requirements for a standard list operation with three parameters.

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%, providing detailed descriptions for workspace, severity, and limit parameters. The description mentions 'workspace' in the first sentence, reinforcing the required parameter's role, but does not elaborate further on parameter semantics. With full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with clear resource ('active alerts and incidents') and scope ('for a workspace'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings (check_policy, check_spend, evaluate_guardrail, etc.) by positioning this as an aggregation endpoint that covers 'budget alerts, policy violations, guardrail triggers, and provider issues'—implicitly contrasting with the specific deep-check operations of sibling 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 provides implied usage guidance by enumerating the specific alert types included (budget, policy, guardrail, provider), which helps identify when to use this tool versus specific check/evaluate siblings. However, it lacks explicit guidance such as 'use this for overview, use check_policy for specific policy validation' or explicit when-not conditions.

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