prev_workspace

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

Annotations already establish that this mutates state (readOnlyHint=false) without being destructive, so the description need only add context — yet it adds none. It does not say what happens when already on the first workspace (wrap-around vs no-op), whether focus follows, or whether any confirmation/response is returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, which is a completeness issue rather than a structure issue.

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 zero-parameter navigation tool with no output schema this is close to sufficient, but the one behavior an agent actually needs — edge-of-list behavior and side effects on focus — is left unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related the description could usefully add, and it correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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?

States a specific verb ('switch to') and resource ('previous workspace'), and the directionality distinguishes it from next_workspace and switch_workspace. It is clear without needing to open any schema, though it never names the siblings it differs from.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus switch_workspace (absolute) or next_workspace (opposite direction). An agent must infer the distinction from naming convention alone.

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