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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered upstream. The description does add a genuinely non-obvious trait –'without waking workspace' implies a side-effect-free read against a possibly dormant workspace – but it never explains what 'waking' means, what happens if the workspace is asleep, or what gets returned.

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 or restated title. The economy is real, though it shades into under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

Four parameters, two of them enums, with zero schema descriptions and no output schema. An agent has no way to know what values to pass for workspace/client/surface or which sections exist from the description alone, so it is not complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely doesn't. The words 'setup/live status/console links' loosely gesture at the sections enum, but workspace, client, and surface (both enums) are entirely unexplained.

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?

It names a verb (read) and the things returned (setup, live status, console links), so the purpose is inferable but stated as a compressed fragment. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as workspace_settings_save, workspace_setup_retry, or workspaces_list.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The only implicit signal is that this is the cheap read path, but the agent must infer that on its own.

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