اطلاعات میزکار، پلن و دعوت‌ها

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds authorization-dependent behavior that annotations cannot express: plan details (limits, invoices) are visible only to workspace admins, so non-admin callers get partial results. It also points to the sibling needed to act on pending invitations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary returned fields before the admin-visibility caveat and the cross-tool pointer. Dense but every clause conveys content an agent can act on; no 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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by enumerating the fields returned (name, plan status, permissions, invitations, unread badges). The admin gating is disclosed, so an agent can interpret a sparse response correctly.

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 the schema carries no semantics and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level detail is needed or missing.

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 names the resource (workspace) and enumerates the specific payload: name, plan status (trial, remaining days, storage), permissions, pending invitations, unread badges. That is far more informative than a tautology, though it is framed as a content list rather than an explicit verb, and it never contrasts itself with the closest sibling mizito_whoami.

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?

It implies usage by describing what the caller will receive and routes a follow-up action to mizito_respond_workspace_invitation, but it never states when to call this versus mizito_whoami or mizito_dashboard. The admin-only visibility note is a condition, not a use-case selection rule.

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