workspace_overview

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the substantive return contents (disk path, folder tree, front page, granted outside folders, allowed asset kinds) along with the supplementary `glob` prompt. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or discuss tree size/cost for large workspaces, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the imperative "Start here" so the entry-point role is the first thing read. Every clause adds information about what comes back or how to learn more; nothing is redundant.

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?

For a read-only orientation tool with no output schema and no annotations, enumerating the returned artifacts covers most of what an agent needs. However, the one input parameter is entirely undocumented, leaving a real gap about how to scope the call when multiple projects exist.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single `project` parameter is never mentioned in the description, so an agent gets no guidance on what it selects, whether it is optional, or what happens when omitted. The only implicit hint is the possessive "the Glob workspace's", which does not compensate for the gap.

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?

"Returns" is a specific verb and the description enumerates the resources returned: workspace folder on disk, tree, front page, granted outside folders, and allowed asset kinds. That makes the tool clearly an orientation/snapshot tool, distinct in practice from workspace_list and workspace_read, though neither sibling is named.

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?

"Start here" is an explicit directive about when to call it (session start / orientation before other workspace operations), and pointing at the `glob` prompt gives the agent a follow-on action. It stops short of saying when to prefer workspace_list, workspace_read, or scan_game_project instead, so exclusions are absent.

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