desktop_workspaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses important side effects: every dispatched switch expires the server's screenshots, even when requesting the current workspace, and external workspace changes are not continuously tracked. These are non-obvious traits an agent must know to avoid coordinate-related errors.

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 concise sentences front-load the primary purpose and then deliver critical behavioral warnings. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and critical behavioral caveats. It lacks explicit return-value details and error behavior for invalid indices, but the core usage is sufficiently clear for correct invocation.

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 schema provides only an optional integer or null 'workspace' with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by contrasting 'list workspaces' (null) with 'switch to an existing index' (integer), and warns that even switching to the current index has side effects. This compensates for the schema's lack of semantic detail.

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 specific operations: listing workspaces and switching to an existing index, with verification of the active workspace. It identifies the resource (workspaces) and differentiates from sibling tools like desktop_windows by focusing on workspace-level management.

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 usage for enumerating or switching workspaces but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to use this tool over siblings such as desktop_windows or desktop_status. The warning about screenshot expiration provides context for sequencing with observation tools, but no exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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