Describe the workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it discloses that the tool walks every hash link to determine verification, implying traversal cost, and it clarifies which concerns it deliberately does not handle. No cost/rate detail or latency warning is given, but the behavioral picture is clear.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is summarised, then when to use it, then boundaries and routing to alternatives. The enumeration is dense but each item maps to a distinct reported section, so nothing is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, invocation timing, and sibling boundaries. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly at session start is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by framing it as a whole-workspace summary.

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 (summarise) and resource (the workspace this server serves), then enumerates the exact contents returned: fragments per authority layer, agent-visible memory, pending whispers, Mission Group reviewers, and evidence-chain verification. This distinguishes it from the narrower list_* siblings without the agent needing to open a schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it ('use it to orient yourself at the start of a session') and names two alternatives with their selecting conditions: audit_verify for ledger comparison and errors found, list_tacit_memory for the memory itself. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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