get_plane_workflow_setup_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses two meaningful behaviors — no network call to Plane and no credential exposure — which an agent needs in order to reason about safety and side effects. It doesn't say what 'configured' concretely means, which keeps it below a 5.

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 with no filler; every clause ('configured', 'without contacting Plane', 'without revealing credentials') adds distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and there are no parameters to explain. The agent has enough to call it correctly, with only a minor gap around what counts as 'configured' and which sibling to use when a live check is needed.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool takes no input.

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 ('Check') and resource ('whether Plane Workflow is configured'), so the agent knows exactly what state is being inspected. It distinguishes itself from the connection/workspace siblings by scope, though it doesn't name a specific alternative such as diagnose_plane_connection.

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 qualifier 'without contacting Plane or revealing credentials' gives clear context for when this is the right tool — a local, non-invasive pre-flight check. It stops short of explicitly naming what to use instead when Plane connectivity actually needs testing.

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