get_active_plane_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose key traits: it does not expose credentials and does not change Plane. For a zero-parameter read operation this is meaningful transparency, though it could say more about behavior when no active workspace/project 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the operation and its safety constraints immediately.

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?

The tool is simple, parameterless, and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose and safety adequately, though it could note prerequisites such as needing a configured or activated workspace.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable beyond the baseline. The schema is empty and fully consistent with a parameterless context lookup.

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 names a specific verb ("Show") and resource ("active Plane workspace and project"), making the operation clear. The word "active" implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like list_configured_plane_workspaces and activate_plane_workspace, though it does not explicitly route the agent among them.

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?

Usage is implied: inspect the current active workspace/project safely. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_configured_plane_workspaces, activate_plane_workspace, or get_project_workflow_context. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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