app_diag_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: the read-only nature is implicit in 'enumerate'/'Reports', and the truncation to the first 10 matches is explicitly disclosed. It omits the requirement that Altium be attached/active and doesn't state permissions, but the behavior disclosed is accurate and useful.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the reported fields. The trailing sentence about the dispatcher is slightly internal but still justifies the tool's existence.

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?

An output schema exists, so restating return fields is not strictly needed, though it is harmless. The real gap is the sole input: pattern semantics are left entirely undocumented, which is the one thing an agent must get right to call this tool.

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?

There is one parameter ('pattern', default request_*.json) with 0% schema description coverage. The description only refers to 'the pattern used' in the output list; it never explains the matching syntax (glob wildcards, case sensitivity, whether it is a filename or path pattern), so an agent must guess how to construct it.

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 and resource (enumerate workspace files) plus the underlying mechanism (Altium's FindFiles helper). It doesn't name any sibling or contrast itself with a general listing tool, but the 'Diagnostic:' prefix carves out a clear niche among the ~200 siblings.

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?

'Used to validate the per-request file enumeration that the dispatcher relies on' gives a concrete context for when this tool is appropriate, which is more than most siblings offer. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or what alternative listing tool to reach for instead.

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