Create a new App workspace and return its actual working directory without changing the shared shell directory.
Create a new App workspace. Returns its actual cwd; does not change the shared shell directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write profile is known. The description adds genuine non-obvious behavioral context: it returns the workspace's actual cwd, and notably that it does NOT change the shared shell directory — a subtle side-effect distinction an agent needs. It doesn't cover auth/rate limits, but the cwd clarification is valuable.
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?
Two compact sentences, both front-loaded with the key facts (creation and cwd behavior). No filler, every clause earns its place.
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 creation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the essential behavioral quirk (cwd behavior). However, with no output schema and no usage guidance among many siblings, the description is only minimally complete — an agent gets the 'what' but not the 'when' or param details.
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 there is only 1 param ('name'), so per the rule baseline is 4 for zero params, but here 1 param exists. The description adds nothing about the 'name' parameter's format, uniqueness, or constraints. Schema is minimal (just a string), and the description compensates not at all.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new App workspace.' This distinguishes it from apps_open, apps_list, apps_publish etc. among the siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this versus alternatives. With 15 sibling apps_* tools, an agent would benefit from knowing when to create a new workspace vs. open/launch an existing one, and that guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.