Ribbon workspace status

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. The verb 'Show' implies a read-only operation, and it lists informational categories, but it does not explicitly state that no changes are made or address permission requirements. The description adds some transparency by naming WhoAmI, dirty state, and backups, but it could be more explicit about absence of side effects.

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 succinct, two sentences long, with the action leading. The first sentence lists the key data points, and the second provides a clear usage directive. No filler or redundant information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description appropriately summarizes the returned content (connection, checkouts, backups) at a high level. It does not detail the exact response structure, but for a status overview tool, this is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. The inclusion of 'recent backups' and 'dirty state' gives helpful context for interpreting the tool's output.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of the single optional parameter 'environment', including its format and fallback to an environment variable. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource (connection, checkouts, backups for Dataverse). It differentiates from siblings like ribbon_list_backups and ribbon_checkout by aggregating multiple status types into a single overview. The phrase 'Start here to orient yourself' reinforces its role as an entry point.

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 provides clear usage context by saying 'Start here to orient yourself', implying this is the first tool to invoke when checking workspace state. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as deferring to ribbon_list_backups for detailed backup history or ribbon_checkout for specific checkout details.

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