Local workspace safety status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with by using the non-destructive verb 'List'. The description adds useful specificity about what information is returned, going beyond the annotations. No contradictions are present.

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 a single, concise sentence that lists the exact outputs. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action verb, making it easy to understand at a glance. No unnecessary words or complexity.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description adequately informs the agent of what the tool returns: fixed workspace IDs, enabled capabilities, approved tasks, and safety boundary. This is sufficient for understanding the tool's result without needing additional details.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is fully covered with an empty properties object. Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none.

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 purpose with a specific verb 'List' and identifies the exact resources it returns: workspace IDs, capabilities, approved tasks, and safety boundary. This makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from typical file or workspace operations.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. While it is clearly a read-only status tool, it does not explicitly state that it should be used for checking workspace safety before operations, nor does it mention alternatives. Thus, usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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