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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the output contents (URL, container state, current release, visibility, shared list), which indicates a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm that it makes no changes, nor does it mention any permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is informative but leaves safety and side-effect assumptions to the agent.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the key output fields. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose and output fields, but lacks usage guidance and explicit read-only confirmation. It does not mention how to handle cases like a missing tool or workspace ambiguity. While adequate for a basic get operation, it leaves some gaps in context that an agent might need.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (tool and workspace) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states; it does not clarify parameter formats, default behaviors, or relationships between them. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it provides details of a single tool, specifically URL, container state, current release, visibility, and shared-with list. This distinguishes it from list_tools (which lists tools) and delete_tool (which removes tools). The verb 'get' is implied by the name and the description specifies the resource and the exact fields returned.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need detailed information about a specific tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as 'use list_tools to see all tools' or 'do not use this for deployment'. The sibling list suggests the context, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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