Inspect workspace (spike)

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. It explicitly states that the tool ignores the 'placeholder' parameter and returns the server pid and build label, which is honest and sufficient for a simple stub. There is no mention of side effects or error conditions, but the tool's trivial nature makes that a minor gap.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the key concept ('spike stub'), and contains no redundant information. Every sentence contributes meaning: the purpose, the return values, and the parameter handling.

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?

The tool is a simple stub with a single optional parameter and no siblings. The description covers the purpose, return values, and parameter behavior. An output schema is present, and the description mentions pid and build label, which likely appears in that schema, so no critical information 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?

The schema provides zero description coverage (0%), but the description fully compensates by stating that the 'placeholder' field is optional and ignored. This completely explains the only parameter's semantics, adding value beyond the bare schema.

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 that this is a 'spike stub' to confirm the MCP stdio round-trip and that it returns the server pid and build label. While the name 'Inspect workspace' could be misleading, the description immediately clarifies its actual testing purpose. There are no sibling tools, so differentiation is not explicitly needed.

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 implies usage as a connectivity test by saying it 'confirms the MCP stdio round-trip end-to-end.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. The 'spike stub' label provides some implicit context that this is a temporary/testing tool.

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