get-workspace-insights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool aggregates data from all projects, which is useful context, but does not detail what the insights contain or any edge case behaviors.

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 highly concise with three short sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, parameter overview, and usage context. No unnecessary words or 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?

Given the presence of a full schema and annotations (including readOnlyHint and idempotentHint), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and basic usage. The output schema likely covers return details, so no further explanation is needed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description briefly restates that workspaceIdOrName supports name/ID and projectIds is optional, adding no new semantic information beyond the schema.

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 retrieves aggregated health and progress insights across all projects in a workspace. The term 'cross-project' helps distinguish it from project-level tools like 'get-project-health', but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from possibly overlapping tools like 'get-overview'.

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 use for 'a cross-project health overview', providing context on when to use it. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when not to use or mention alternative tools, leaving room for ambiguity.

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