get_workflow_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; "without changing Plane" is a genuinely valuable non-destructiveness guarantee that substitutes for a destructiveHint=false. Beyond that it says nothing about scope of the result set, behavior when project_id is omitted, or permission requirements. An output schema exists, so omitting return-shape detail is acceptable.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the concrete list of option types, with the safety clause trailing. Nothing is wasted, though it is terse enough that key scoping detail was cut.

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 output schema removes the need to explain return values, and there is only one optional parameter, which keeps the surface small. Still, with zero annotation coverage the description should say what scope of choices comes back and what happens without a project_id, and it does not.

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% and the single parameter project_id is never mentioned in the description. The most important semantic question — whether omitting project_id (default null) yields options across all projects or the active project — is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Names a specific verb ("List") and a specific resource ("state, cycle, assignee, and estimate choices for a project"), which is far more concrete than a generic "get options". It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_project_workflow_context or get_project_workflow_profile, so an agent must open both to know which to call.

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 phrase "without changing Plane" implies a read-only, discovery-style usage, which is a useful hint but not an explicit when-to-use statement. No alternative tool is named and no precondition (e.g., needing an active project first) is stated.

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