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, yet the description goes well beyond them by enumerating the returned payload — question, input sources, per-answer descriptions and examples, build-readiness gaps, and build metrics like held-out accuracy, per-answer recall, confusion pairs, and compiler notes. With no output schema, this return-format disclosure is genuinely valuable.

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?

Front-loaded with 'One shim in full' followed by an em-dash inventory and then actionable guidance. It is dense and long, but nearly every clause conveys concrete content or instruction rather than filler, so it earns its place despite the length.

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?

For a read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by describing the return payload in detail and even explaining how to act on it (write examples toward low-recall answers). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%: shimId is documented as coming from workbench_shim_list, and workspace documents the personal-token/workspace-key rules. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate — the schema carries the full burden.

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 states exactly what this tool returns: the full contents of one shim — the question, input provenance, every answer with examples, build readiness, and the latest build report. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like workbench_shim_list (enumeration), workbench_shim_create, and workbench_shim_add_answer/add_examples, so an agent can route correctly without inspecting schemas.

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?

It gives concrete usage context: 'Read it before writing examples', match the existing examples' register, and place new examples where recall is low or the compiler flags thin answers. That is strong when-to-use guidance tied to a workflow, but it names no explicit exclusion or alternative tool (e.g. don't call if you only need the id list).

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