Inspect Workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'bounded' and 'coverage warnings,' hinting at output limitations, but it does not discuss pagination, truncation behavior, or analysis cost. This is adequate given the annotations, but not rich.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and output scope, then enumerates the components compactly. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description gives only a high-level output list. It does not cover mode selection, pagination/default limits, or when to choose this over siblings. The input schema fills parameter details, but the overall invocation context remains thin.

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 parameter semantics are already fully documented. The description does not repeat parameter details, but it aligns output concepts like symbols and relationships with include_symbols and include_relationships, adding marginal context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('bounded repository map') and enumerates the map's contents: languages, project types, entrypoints, areas, symbols, relationships, and coverage warnings. This clearly distinguishes it from file-level tools like read or tree, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.

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 guidance on when to use inspect_workspace versus related tools like tree, search, or list_workspaces. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative-routing hints are provided; the only signal is the tool's name.

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