workspace_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety/mutation behavior is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about what happens when the ID doesn't exist, when workspace_type doesn't match the ID's entity type, or about lookup failures.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the verb and resource come first. The enum restatement is slightly redundant with the schema but not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. However, with 0% schema description coverage and a type+ID pairing that must match, the description should explain the relationship between the two parameters and any failure modes; that context is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does clarify that workspace_id is numeric and restates the workspace_type enum values (which the schema already enumerates). It adds no meaning about how type scopes the ID lookup, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a single workspace entity') plus the keying mechanism ('by its numeric ID'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling workspace_search tool, which is the main look-alike.

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 'by its numeric ID' implies the usage context (you already know the ID, so use this instead of a search), but it never says so explicitly nor names workspace_search as the alternative for lookup-by-criteria. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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