grade_workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description is consistent, describing a scanning and output operation with no mutation. It adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotation by specifying exactly what it outputs (grade levels, coverage, orphan table judgment) and that it does not persist results itself (delegates to save_structure). This enriches the read-only 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?

The description is a single, dense run-on sentence with multiple embedded clauses and technical criteria. While it front-loads the purpose, the excessive detail (e.g., specific header patterns) makes it harder to parse quickly. It could be split into clearer sentences without losing information.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining what the tool does and what it returns. It lists the outputs (workspace grade, per-table grade, coverage, orphan table detection) and the integration with save_structure. This is adequate for an agent to call it correctly, though it doesn't specify the exact data structure of the output.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (vacuously), so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; it instead explains the logic and outputs, which is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: grading a workspace by scanning all tables and classifying them into A/B/C levels based on specific criteria. It also mentions the outputs (workspace grade, per-table grade, coverage, orphan table detection), making it highly specific and distinct from sibling tools like profile_table or infer_foreign_keys.

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 positions itself as the 'first step of reverse integration', giving clear context on when to use it. It also references save_structure as a follow-up action, which helps an agent understand the workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other steps, so it falls short of a 5.

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