set_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'sets' a directory, implying a mutation, but doesn't describe what happens if the directory doesn't exist, whether changes are persistent, what permissions are required, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 (a mutation operation with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 50% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, and output expectations, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 50% (only the 'path' parameter has a description in the schema). The tool description doesn't mention any parameters, so it adds no semantic value beyond what's in the schema. With partial schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'create' parameter.

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's purpose: '문서를 읽고 쓸 기본 디렉터리를 설정합니다' (Sets the default directory for reading and writing documents). It specifies the verb '설정합니다' (sets) and the resource '기본 디렉터리' (default directory). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'open_document' or 'save_as', which might also involve directory operations, so it doesn't reach 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the directory must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'open_document' or 'save_as'. It only states what the tool does, not when it should be applied.

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