thinkneo-control-plane

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

While annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the authentication requirements ('No authentication required') and details what metrics are returned (latency, error rates, availability). This goes beyond the binary read-only flag to explain what data the agent can expect.

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 well-structured sentences with zero waste: first establishes purpose, second details output metrics, third states authentication requirements. Information is front-loaded and 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 and readOnly annotations, the description provides sufficient context without redundancy. It adequately covers the tool's purpose, return value categories, and invocation prerequisites for a simple monitoring tool with two optional 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents both parameters including specific provider enum values (openai, anthropic, etc.) and the optional workspace context. The description relies on the schema for parameter semantics, which is appropriate given the comprehensive 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 specific verbs ('Get', 'Shows') and clearly identifies the resource (health and performance status of AI providers) and scope (routed through ThinkNEO gateway). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like check_spend, check_policy, and get_compliance_status by focusing on provider infrastructure rather than financial or policy domains.

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 one usage constraint ('No authentication required'), which is helpful for invocation prerequisites. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling status-checking tools like thinkneo_get_budget_status or thinkneo_check_spend, leaving the selection criteria implied rather than stated.

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