Build workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return content (canonical JSON, CLI command, JSON-only fields) and the optional write side effect. It does not mention overwrite behavior or error cases, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, each packed with necessary details and no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the optional write and CLI-command return are clearly appended.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, output, and side effects sufficiently. It lacks error/return-value details but is complete enough for an AI to select and invoke 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 schema describes path but not spec (50% coverage). The description compensates by explaining spec as the workspace spec to validate/canonicalize and path as the optional .json write target, adding meaning beyond the bare 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 validates a workspace spec, returns canonical JSON, optionally writes to a path, and returns a CLI command when possible. This specific verb-action combination distinguishes it from sibling validate_workspace and launch_workspace.

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 when canonical JSON or file writing is needed, and the presence of validate_workspace as a sibling suggests an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over validate_workspace or other workspace tools.

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