list_configured_plane_workspaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: no network call to Plane, so no auth or connectivity is required. Read-only semantics are conveyed by 'List'. It stops short of saying what happens when no workspace is configured or where the config is read from.

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 sentence with no filler. The most decision-relevant clause ('locally configured ... without contacting Plane') is front-loaded before the payload detail.

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 spelled out, and with no parameters the surface area is tiny. The description covers purpose, offline behavior, and the shape of the result; only edge-case behavior (empty config, config location) is unaddressed.

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 no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool takes no arguments by describing a fixed, global listing.

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 and resource ('List locally configured Plane workspaces') and adds the payload detail 'the project selected in each'. The qualifier 'locally configured' plus 'without contacting Plane' implicitly separates it from remote-facing siblings like list_plane_projects, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 contacting Plane' signals the context in which this tool is appropriate (offline/local inspection), which is a real usage hint. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_plane_projects or get_active_plane_context, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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