create_workspace_bioos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a new workspace, implying a write operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient phrase in Chinese ('Bio-OS 创建新工作空间'), which is appropriately concise and front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it could benefit from more detail to improve clarity and completeness.

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 tool's complexity (a write operation with nested parameters) and the absence of annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and parameter insights. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description does not leverage this to provide a complete picture, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full context.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the schema itself includes detailed descriptions for all nested properties (e.g., 'workspace_name', 'ak', 'endpoint'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate for or enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Bio-OS 创建新工作空间' clearly states the action (创建/创建) and resource (工作空间/workspace) in Chinese, which translates to 'Bio-OS creates a new workspace.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workspace' or 'export_bioos_workspace,' which limits its clarity in context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as authentication via 'ak' and 'sk' parameters, or compare it to sibling tools like 'list_workspace' for viewing existing workspaces. This lack of context makes it unclear when this tool is appropriate.

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