get_workspace

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'get' which implies a read, but it does not mention what is returned, how errors are handled, or what happens if both ID and owner/repo are provided. This is minimal disclosure.

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 short sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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 getter, the description states the core purpose and key identifiers, but it lacks details like return format, error behavior, and exact parameter names. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more context would be needed for full confidence in invocation.

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 has zero defined properties, so the description is the only source of parameter information. It mentions 'ID or owner/repo', providing key selector concepts but without exact parameter names or formats. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds some clarity despite ambiguity.

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 gets a workspace, specifies the resource (workspace), and identifies two distinct selector mechanisms (ID or owner/repo). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workspaces and get_info.

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 implies usage when you have a workspace ID or owner/repo identifier, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this over list_workspaces or other tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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