Open Workspace

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

Annotations provide no destructive/readonly hints, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the key behavioral nuance: connection binding vs global workspace distinction, and that activate=false yields read-only behavior. It doesn't detail failures, permissions, or return format, but the core behavioral quirk (context-dependent scoping) is well disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, tightly written, no fluff. Front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence conveys a nuanced behavioral distinction efficiently. Could be scored 5 but the behavioral nuance sentence is dense; still well within appropriate size for a 10-param tool.

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 10-parameter tool with a full output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description appropriately adds behavioral context (binding semantics, read-only path) rather than repeating schema details. It doesn't mention return shape but the output schema covers that. Slightly incomplete on failure modes, hence 4 rather than 5.

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 coverage is 100% with rich per-parameter descriptions (aliases, defaults, deprecation notes). The description adds minimal param meaning beyond listing read-only behavior and defaults. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already does the heavy lifting well.

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 verb (open) and resource (local project directory), and distinguishes behavior across two contexts (ChatGPT Connector vs local CLI). It differentiates from sibling 'open_current_workspace' and other workspace management tools by specifying scope-of-effect differences.

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?

Explicitly states when to use activate=false (read-only inspection) and clarifies the distinction between ChatGPT Connector conversation binding vs local CLI global path. This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't name specific alternative tools — but the context differentiation is itself strong usage guidance.

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