workspace_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions partial auth requirements and does not explain read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the map is empty. The output structure is not described.

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 concise (two sentences plus metadata tags). The metadata tags provide quick categorization, but the core description could be slightly more structured to include parameter hints. No fluff, but could be improved.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the structure of the map, how filters interact, or what 'active task counts' means. The tool is a complex query tool but the description lacks sufficient detail for full understanding.

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%, yet the description only hints at include_counts ('optionally with active task counts') and ignores other parameters like include_closed, filters, and regex. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's field names and defaults.

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 it returns a 'navigable map of folders and projects' and notes optional task counts. It distinguishes from siblings like list_projects and list_project_folders by mentioning hierarchical structure, and explicitly lists related tools.

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 provided category, auth hints, and a list of related tools (list_projects, list_project_folders, full_sync, query_projects), which implies when to use alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer workspace_map over siblings or provide clear usage scenarios.

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