diagnose_plane_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key trait: 'without changing Plane,' establishing read-only safety. It omits what a failed diagnosis looks like, whether it performs network calls, or what auth it assumes — meaningful gaps for a connectivity-diagnostic tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering both invocation modes with no filler. The embedded conditional clause ('and, when given a project') slightly muddies the read on first pass but still 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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, and there is only one optional parameter, so the description's two-mode explanation is close to sufficient. Missing only failure/auth expectations, which matters for a tool whose whole job is diagnosing connectivity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it partially does by explaining that project_id scopes the API-capability read and is optional. It does not state whether the value is an ID or a slug, nor what happens to the capability output when the project is omitted.

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?

States a specific verb pair ('check' local configuration, 'read' API capabilities) against a specific resource (Plane), and the 'diagnose connection' framing separates it from the CRUD-oriented siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from, so it stops short of 5.

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?

'when given a project' gives conditional usage for the optional parameter, implying it works with or without one. However, it never says when an agent should reach for this diagnostic instead of get_active_plane_context or get_plane_workflow_setup_status, both of which sound adjacent.

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