plan_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that the tool shows status and that browser OAuth opens automatically, which is a key side effect. However, it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, what the exact output or status fields are, or if authentication state changes occur.

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 two sentences long, presenting the purpose and a key guideline in a clear, front-loaded manner. Every word contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema and no parameters, the description covers the basic purpose and the critical OAuth opening behavior. However, it lacks details on what exactly 'auth + workspace status' encompasses, such as specific status fields or return formats, making it less complete for an agent without further context.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to compensate. The baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description adds value by explaining the OAuth behavior, though it does not directly address parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and resource 'auth + workspace status', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like plan_oauth_login and plan_get. The addition 'Call first' further clarifies its role as an initial status check.

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 description explicitly states 'Call first', indicating when to use this tool. It also explains that end users need no CLIENT_ID because browser OAuth opens automatically, which helps differentiate from OAuth tools. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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