innoslate_read_workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior in disclosing pagination ('Long files come in pages: pass next_offset back as offset'). It stops short of explaining the offset/max_chars interplay or what truncated reads look like.

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 core action, then paging behavior. No filler, no redundancy with the schema.

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?

For a read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors an agent needs: valid identifiers and paging. The unmentioned max_chars and project_url are the only remaining gaps, and the paging note carries most of the operational weight.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full load. It explains 'name' richly and implies 'offset' via the next_offset paging hint, but 'max_chars' and 'project_url' are never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read a file from the project workspace') and enumerates the canonical names ('map', 'nomenclature', 'audit') plus relative-path support. It implicitly separates itself from read_local_file by scoping to the 'project workspace', though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives concrete values for the 'name' argument and thus implies what the tool is for, but it never states when to choose it over read_local_file or list_local_files, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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