validate_workspace

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

Description states it does not modify files or invoke a model, and returns structured authorization and capability diagnostics. With no annotations provided, this disclosure is valuable for the agent to understand it is a safe, read-only operation.

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 purpose and includes behavioral info. No wasted words; every clause 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?

Given 3 parameters with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description adequately explains purpose and behavior. It could be slightly more complete by hinting at the diagnostic structure, but it is sufficient for agent understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It only broadly mentions validation and canonicalization.

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?

Description clearly states it validates and canonicalizes a workspace before loading context or starting Gemini. It specifies the resource (workspace) and action (validate/canonicalize), and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on coding tasks, reviews, and debugging.

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?

Description explicitly says 'before loading context or starting Gemini', indicating when to use. It does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear and distinct from sibling tools.

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