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

Annotations already carry readonly and non-destructive safety profile, so the bar for the description is lower. 'Snapshot' reinforces a read-only view, and the content list adds practical context, but the description doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as staleness, rate limits, auth requirements, or how it handles a missing workspace. This adds modest value beyond annotations but not rich behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences: the first lists the snapshot contents, the second states use and non-use. No wasted words, and key info is front-loaded.

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?

The output schema covers the return shape and all four parameters are described in the schema, so the description doesn't need to duplicate that. Together with the use/non-use guidance, an agent has enough to call it correctly. It could be even stronger with explicit references to a sibling such as search for queries beyond workspace snapshot, which is a minor gap.

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 100%, with the context parameter, timezone, workspace, and tasks_limit all documented. The description's content list aligns with output concepts (tasks, projects) but doesn't add syntax or format details for any parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema is doing the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the tool as fetching a workspace snapshot and enumerates its contents (user info, task counts, recent tasks, active projects). It also frames the primary use cases (resolving a name, answering workspace-contents questions), which is clear. However, it doesn't name any sibling tools, and the warning against warm-up calls is more about misuse than a concrete sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use ('resolve a name or answer what is in the workspace') and when not to use ('not as a warm-up before every turn'). It stops short of naming an alternative like search for broader or narrower queries, so it falls one step shy of the top anchor.

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