Informações do workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what information is returned (root, mode, approval, shell/docker enabled) but doesn't describe the return format, whether it makes network calls, or any side effects. For a read-only info tool, the disclosed behavior is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that lists the key return values and ends with a clear imperative instruction. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema info tool, the description is nearly complete. It states what is returned and when to call it. The only minor gap is not describing the return format (e.g., JSON structure), but with no output schema, a bit more detail on the response shape could help. Still, the essential information is present.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, which is the relevant semantic content for a parameterless tool. Baseline 4 for zero params is appropriate.

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 the tool returns workspace root, mode (safe/admin), approval status, and whether shell/docker are enabled. It uses a specific verb ('Retorna') and resource ('workspace'), and the 'Chame primeiro' instruction distinguishes it as an initialization/inspection tool. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the sibling list shows this is the only workspace-level info tool, so differentiation is clear.

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 explicitly says 'Chame primeiro' (call first), which is a clear usage directive. It implies this should be called before other tools to understand workspace context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a zero-parameter info tool, the 'call first' guidance is sufficient context.

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