Open Wisp FigureFree

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is free. The description adds genuinely new behavior: new installs return setup_required until the global Library and Local workspace are bound, which is a state an agent must handle and cannot learn from annotations or the empty schema.

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 clauses with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite/next-step conditions packed efficiently. Slightly dense, but no sentence is wasted.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema tool in a family of ~60 siblings, the description supplies the two facts an agent needs: this is the read-only entry point and it may return setup_required. It would be stronger if it named the companions used after opening.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly focuses its words on invocation context rather than inventing parameter detail.

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: 'Open the read-only candidate workbench,' which tells an agent what the tool does and that the surface is read-only. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from similarly named siblings (e.g., figure_library_review_open, figure_library_search), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It implies this is an entry-point call by instructing the agent to ask for an uploaded reference, data profile, or plotting goal before searching, and it notes the setup_required branch on new installs. However, no sibling alternative is ever named, so the when-to-use-this-vs-that decision is left to inference.

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