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. The description adds context by noting the output is 'aggregated' and scoped 'across all projects', which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, then provides input details and a use case. Every sentence adds value and there is no wasteful repetition or 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?

For a simple read-only tool with a rich output schema, high schema parameter coverage, and strong annotations, the description fully covers purpose, input semantics, and usage context. No additional behavioral or output details are necessary, and the agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates what the schema already says ('Accepts workspace name or ID, with optional project ID filtering') without adding additional format, defaults, or edge-case semantics, so it earns the baseline score.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('aggregated health and progress insights across all projects in a workspace'), which makes the core purpose unambiguous. It differentiates from project-specific tools by the 'across all projects' scope, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or contrast with tools like get-productivity-stats.

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 phrase 'Useful for a cross-project health overview' provides a clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly point to alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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