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

Annotations establish that this is a non-destructive, idempotent, non-open-world write operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: automatic CLI invocation points, workspace-key-only scope, and the fact that Retasc never stores paths. It does not cover error behavior or permissions, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by invocation context and constraints. The parenthetical listing of CLI call sites is somewhat long but still useful for preventing misuse.

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 one-parameter mutation with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, scope, caller context, and a key privacy constraint. It does not describe response behavior, but no output schema exists and the operation is simple enough that this 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already says the parameter is the folder's own name, not a path. The description reinforces this and adds the rationale that Retasc never stores paths, which adds meaning beyond the schema even though it does not introduce new syntax.

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 a specific verb and resource: telling Retasc which folder a workspace key is bound to so the Dash can report where an agent runs. It also scopes the operation to workspace keys and clarifies that the value is the folder's own name, not a path.

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 clear usage context: the CLI calls this automatically at bind, session start, and setup, and an agent has no folder of its own to report. This effectively communicates when the tool is not agent-initiated, though it does not name an alternative sibling tool or say explicitly what an agent should do instead.

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