create_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. It states the tool creates a workspace, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't describe what happens after creation (e.g., whether it's immediately active, if it requires additional setup, or if there are limits on workspace count). It mentions the workspace is 'isolated', which adds some context about separation, but lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or side effects.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is created and its intended use.

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 complexity as a creation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, workspace details), potential errors, or how the created workspace integrates with sibling tools like 'execute_command'. For a mutation tool in this context, more completeness is needed to guide effective use.

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 the single parameter 'workspace_id' documented as a 'Unique workspace identifier'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format constraints or examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new isolated workspace for commands'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workspaces', but the verb 'Create' versus 'List' provides inherent distinction. The description avoids tautology by specifying what is being created and its purpose.

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 like 'list_workspaces' or 'destroy_workspace'. It mentions the workspace is 'for commands', which hints at a context involving command execution, but doesn't specify prerequisites, dependencies, or typical workflows. No explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative tool references are included.

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