get_workspace_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'inspect' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it describe the return value or error behavior. It adds some transparency but leaves gaps.

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 sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose ('Debugging tool') and enumerates specific aspects concisely without 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?

The tool has a simple signature (one optional param, no output schema), and the description covers the main purpose. However, it could name the return value or clarify what 'validity' entails, but it's reasonably complete for a debugging helper.

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 already provides a clear description of 'projectPath' with 100% coverage, so the tool description doesn't need to add more. It doesn't, which is acceptable.

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 a specific action ('inspect') and resource ('active project workspace'), enumerating concrete aspects (resolution, detection source, protection status, validity). It differentiates from sibling tools which are all setup/management actions.

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 phrase 'Debugging tool' provides clear context for when to use it (during troubleshooting), and the read-oriented verb 'inspect' distinguishes it from the action-oriented siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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