Open Current Workspace

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful beyond-schema context: the tool is intended as the initial workspace-opening call, it accepts no path, and it establishes a root context such that following it with open_workspace means switching roots.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero padding. The main instruction is front-loaded and the alternative-tool warning appears in the second sentence, giving a clear and efficient structure.

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 simple optional-parameter tool, the description covers the core invocation rule, the no-path constraint, and the relationship to open_workspace. The schema covers parameter details, and the annotations cover safety, so nothing essential for selecting and calling this tool is missing.

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?

All four parameters are fully documented in the input schema (types, ranges, defaults, and behavior such as 'Default: false for speed'), so the description does not need to add much. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('open'), a specific resource ('the configured default workspace'), and an explicit constraint ('without accepting a path'). It also contrasts directly with open_workspace, making it easy for an agent to distinguish this from the sibling tool.

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 an explicit usage trigger ('Use this once at the start') and an explicit exclusion ('Do not call open_workspace after this unless switching roots'). This tells the agent both when to invoke this tool and when not to invoke the obvious alternative.

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