chap.workspace.describe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The non-mutating verb 'Report' and the phrase 'current state' signal that this is a read-only inspection operation, and the enumerated data items communicate what the agent should expect. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify' or describe error conditions, but the read-only nature is strongly conveyed.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the report contents. Every clause contributes useful information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter inspection tool, the description covers the input and the substance of the report, which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. It does not specify the return format or failure behavior, but the enumerated contents give an agent a clear idea of what will be returned.

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 input schema fully describes the single 'workspace' parameter with a format example, so schema coverage is 100%. The description's reference to 'a workspace' adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and clearly names the resource: the current state of a workspace. It enumerates the report contents (members, enabled profiles, audit length, task and override counts), which distinguishes it from mutating workspace siblings like chap.workspace.create and chap.workspace.set_profiles.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The read-only nature is implied by 'Report', but there is no explicit guidance such as 'use this to inspect a workspace before modifying it' or references to sibling tools that make changes.

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