init_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose real behavioral facts: it creates a filesystem tree plus a WORKSPACE.md journal, and it hints target selection is deferred. It omits what happens on an existing path (overwrite? error?), and any permission or destructive implications.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the concrete output layout, then the target hint. Every phrase carries information; no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 need no explanation, and the directory layout is thorough. But for a 5-parameter initialization tool with zero schema documentation and no annotations, the three undocumented arguments leave a real invocation gap.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only partially covers 'target' by giving examples (windows-xp, windows-7, windows-any) and alludes to 'version' via fingerprint_windows, but says nothing about the required 'path', nor 'iso' or 'name', leaving an agent guessing about three of five parameters.

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 ('create') and resource ('rebuild workspace') and enumerates the concrete directory layout and WORKSPACE.md journal it produces, so an agent knows exactly what artifact appears. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like workspace_status or cleanup_workspace, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 line 'version decided after fingerprint_windows' implies a call-ordering prerequisite, which is genuine usage guidance. However it never states when this tool should be used versus alternatives (e.g. relative to workspace_status or cleanup_workspace) or whether it should precede or follow vm_create.

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