analyze_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'analyzes' but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, destructive, or requires special permissions. It does not disclose any side effects or error conditions. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with potential file system access.

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 somewhat verbose, including examples and default values inline. It is structured with a clear opening purpose, then REQUIRES, then optional parameters. However, it could be more concise by separating parameter details into a bulleted list. Still, it is functional.

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?

The description covers parameters comprehensively but does not explain return values (no output schema). It also does not reference sibling tools for context. Given the complexity (multiple parameters, workspace path required), it is complete for usage but incomplete for understanding outputs or potential interactions.

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 is empty ('properties': {}), meaning the description provides all parameter semantics. It defines appPath, include, exclude, object_types, return_level, detect_collisions, and map_to_pools with types, defaults, and examples. This adds significant value beyond the schema, compensating for the lack of schema info.

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 analyzes AL workspace for object ID consumption, collisions, and pool mapping. It specifies the resource (workspace) and actions (analyze, detect collisions, map pools). The sibling tools (allocate_id, authorization, config) suggest distinct purposes, and this description differentiates well.

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 usage guidance for parameters, including a REQUIRED appPath with examples and defaults for optional parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., allocate_id) or when not to use it. The guidance is adequate but lacks exclusion criteria.

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