workspace_switch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Switch to a different workspace' implies a state change but doesn't clarify what happens during the switch (e.g., does it affect current operations, require specific permissions, or have side effects like unmounting resources?). It lacks details on success/failure responses, making it inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for brevity and structure.

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 state-changing operation with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meaning, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'name' parameter. It doesn't explain what the name refers to (e.g., an existing workspace identifier), its format, or examples, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 action ('switch') and target ('to a different workspace'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like workspace_create or workspace_mount, which would require more specific context about what 'switching' entails versus creating or mounting workspaces.

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 like workspace_list (to see available workspaces) or workspace_create (to make a new one). There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workspace name) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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