get_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't specify what those details include, whether it's a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, with no wasted space or redundancy.

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 the tool's low complexity (a basic read operation with 2 parameters) and the schema's full coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks context about what details are returned, potential errors, or behavioral traits. This makes it incomplete for optimal agent use, though not critically deficient.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('workspace' as ID and 'include' for additional data). The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond this, such as examples of what 'include' might accept or how the workspace ID is formatted. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific workspace'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_workspace_roles' or 'get_workspace_tags', which also retrieve workspace-related information but focus on different aspects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify when to choose 'get_workspace' over 'list_workspaces' (for a single workspace vs. multiple) or 'get_workspace_roles' (for details vs. role information). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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