Open Current Workspace

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly emphasizes strict read-only semantics (never activates, rebinds, or changes the active workspace) and describes the unbound-conversation fallback behavior. This is a genuinely useful behavioral caveat, though it doesn't detail return format or error conditions.

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 compact at three sentences and front-loaded with a direct statement of purpose. The sentences each earn their place: purpose, safety guarantee, and fallback behavior. Slight deduction for not being structured with explicit headings, but the flow is logical and efficient.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters (all with 100% schema coverage), an output schema, and read-only annotations that establish the safety profile. The description covers the core behavioral contract (read-only, unbound fallback, explicit alternative tool). It could add what the return payload includes, but the output schema exists and the schema covers parameters, so the description is reasonably complete for this complexity level.

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 100%, so each of the 6 parameters is already documented in the schema with meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, but since the schema carries the full burden and does so well, baseline 3 is appropriate. The description's mention of the read-only contract does contextualize why include_tree/include_skills default to false (speed) but that's schema content.

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 reads the workspace already bound to the conversation, using a specific verb ('Read') plus resource ('workspace already bound to this Connector conversation'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from open_workspace by stating it never activates, rebinds, or changes the global active workspace, which clearly differentiates it from the sibling open_workspace tool.

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 states when to use this tool (read the already-bound workspace) and provides a clear alternative instruction: if the conversation is unbound, it inspects the configured default root and asks the caller to use open_workspace explicitly. This gives the agent an explicit when/when-not decision path.

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