code_workspace_collaboration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states it retrieves info, but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behaviors. For a tool that likely performs reads, the description is minimal.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is appropriately sized and contains no filler.

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 that an output schema exists (indicated in context), the description gives a useful hint of what is returned (members, share-links, pending requests). However, it does not explain the output structure or any edge cases. For a simple retrieval tool, this is moderately adequate.

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 one required parameter: workspace_id. The description does not explain what workspace_id is or how to obtain it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaning beyond the schema's 'Workspace Id' title.

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 'Get collaboration info' and specifies three types of information: members, share-links, and pending requests. This makes the purpose explicit and distinguishes it from sibling tools like code_workspace_add_collaborator or code_workspace_create_share_link.

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 implies this tool is used to retrieve collaboration info, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. Sibling tools like code_workspace_add_collaborator or code_workspace_remove_collaborator are related but no comparison is offered.

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