Open TraeCN Workspace

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

The description discloses that the tool verifies activation before returning, which is a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the annotations (all false). It implies a state change but does not detail failure modes or side effects. Given annotations provide little context, the description carries the burden and does a reasonably good job, though it could mention error handling or permissions.

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-loads the core action and verification, and includes the usage directive. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or extraneous text.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to call it, and what to do afterward. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 already describes the single parameter as 'Absolute local folder path.' The description repeats this requirement without adding new semantic detail (e.g., format, examples, or constraints). With schema coverage at 100%, the description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 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 action (open), the resource (absolute local folder path), and the effect (becomes the active TraeCN workspace). It also specifies that the tool verifies activation before returning, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that handle tasks, messages, settings, or conversations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Call before submitting work that depends on a specific project.' It also gives a practical follow-up instruction ('do not repeat the path inside the task message'), which is a clear usage directive. Although alternatives are not named, the tool's role as a workspace setup action is clear and no competing sibling exists.

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