workspace_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Read-only' is a meaningful disclosure about the safety profile, but the tool takes no parameters and no output schema exists, so the description is silent on what is actually returned (paths, config values, roots). It discloses the mutation behavior but little else.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 parameterless tool this is nearly complete on mechanics, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what the inspection yields (e.g., workspace root, name, configuration). What an agent gets back is unknown, which is a real gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies per the rubric. The description correctly implies no arguments 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 ('Inspect') and resource ('the configured workspace'), so the agent knows it reports on workspace configuration rather than reading or searching files. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like fs_stat or lsp_status, which also report status, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus alternatives such as fs_stat (file metadata) or lsp_status (language-server state). Usage is implied by the resource name but no context or exclusions are given.

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