Inspect the local workspace

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that while adding behaviors beyond it: literal (not regex) UTF-8-only searches, streaming/paging for large files, and denied content categories. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded sentences: action capabilities first, workspace_id routing second, path/denial constraints third. No filler; every sentence carries operational information.

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 9-parameter, five-action tool with no output schema, the description covers the action space, key routing, and constraints well. It does not specify output shapes or per-action result semantics, but the action names themselves make the expected results reasonably clear.

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?

With 56% schema coverage, the description adds meaning to several parameters: workspace_id's source and trigger, path's relative-base convention, query's literal-search nature, and limit/offset's page semantics. It does not expand on max_results or case_sensitive, but those are named and defaulted in the schema.

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 names explicit actions — list, read, search, status, diff — with concrete resource and scope (files, UTF-8 text, git output). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_info and edit_file by making clear it is a broad read-only workspace inspection surface.

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?

It gives a clear context for use: multi-workspace routing via server_info, relative paths, and a hard denial list (links, credentials, dependencies, VCS internals). It does not explicitly name sibling tools or say when to prefer file_info or edit_file, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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