workspace_use

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses behaviors: path can be any subdirectory, server auto-finds root, and sandboxes future operations. This adds value beyond basic read/write hints.

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 concise with bullet points, each sentence adding value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured for quick parsing.

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 single parameter, existing output schema, and sibling tools, the description provides sufficient context for workspace selection. It could mention return values but is still 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 'path' parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), but the tool description compensates by explaining acceptable values (repo root or subdirectory) and auto-resolution behavior.

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 selects the project/workspace to manage. It distinguishes from siblings like env_create, env_use, freeze, and pip by focusing on workspace selection.

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 explains that future operations are sandboxed to this workspace, implying it should be used before other tools. It provides context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use.

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