get_workspace_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' strongly implies a non-mutating read and the enumerated fields describe what comes back, which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about permissions, cost, or whether the values are cached/live.

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?

A single compact sentence with the identifying noun up front and the payload listed after; no padding, no restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does so by naming the five stats. For a zero-parameter getter this is nearly sufficient; only the absent read-only/behavioral framing keeps it from being complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline of 4 applies. The enumerated stats describe outputs rather than inputs, which is a reasonable use of the space.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Workspace stats) and enumerates the exact fields returned: child count, part count, gravity, streaming, place name. This distinguishes it from stat-adjacent siblings like get_performance or studio_status, though it never names them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_scene or get_performance, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this. Usage must be inferred entirely from the field list.

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