workspace_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose concretely what the tool inspects (directory presence, journal state and last line, API surface count, component list). It stops short of stating that it is a non-mutating read or any permission/side-effect behavior, but the enumerated inspection targets are unusually informative.

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, front-loaded with the concrete summary contents before the usage note, with no filler. Efficient, though the enumeration of dirs is slightly dense.

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 are already covered, and the low-complexity single-param, non-nested schema keeps the burden light. The main remaining gap is the undocumented workspace parameter, but the description otherwise fully explains the tool's scope.

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 single required parameter "workspace" has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what value it expects (path, name, identifier) or its format. The phrase "the rebuild workspace" hints at the target but adds no actionable semantics beyond the parameter name.

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 uses a specific verb ("Summarize") and resource ("the rebuild workspace") and enumerates exactly what it reports: required dirs, WORKSPACE.md journal state and last line, api/ surface count, and src/ components. It is clearly distinguishable from init_workspace/cleanup_workspace by its read-and-report nature, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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?

"Use to decide the next phase of the loop" gives an implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as build_plan or compat_report. An agent gets a rough sense of when to reach for it but must infer the boundaries.

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