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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful permission context beyond them: a platform admin can show any workspace (read and remove capabilities) but loading requires membership. It does not discuss failure modes for non-members, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences; the core 'read identity, home, capabilities' statement comes first and each subsequent sentence carries routing or permission information. Minor waste in the slug/home wording that doesn't map to any accepted input.

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 tool takes one required UUID, has an output schema so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills in the remaining gaps an agent needs: sibling routing and the membership requirement for loading.

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 single UUID parameter is fully documented, so baseline 3 applies. The mention of 'slug and home' as disambiguators is not reflected in the schema, which takes only workspaceId, so the description adds framing rather than new parameter semantics.

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?

Specific verb+resource: reads workspace identity, home, and live capabilities. An agent can distinguish it from workspace_load (load) and workspace_sessions (activity). The clause about resolving duplicate-name ambiguity is slightly confusing since the schema accepts only a UUID, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly routes activity questions to workspace_sessions ('Use workspace_sessions for who worked here recently') and explains the admin-vs-membership condition that also separates this from workspace_load. It does not address when to prefer workspace_list or workspace_view_context, so guidance is strong but not complete.

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