codelattice_workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the notion of engine-backed job mode and does not disclose behavior such as job lifecycle, response shape, or how modes like job_cancel relate to the read-only annotation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by the single most important usage caveat. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description plus schema cover the main modes, but there is no output schema and no explanation of what the 'full' mode returns or how target/impact mode works. For a 9-parameter multi-mode tool, the description is useful but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 67% and the description adds high-level mode guidance, but it does not explain parameters like root, target, compact, maxDepth, or direction beyond what the schema already says. It is adequate but does not compensate for the remaining undocumented 33% of parameters.

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 identifies a specific resource (workspace/monorepo roots) and a concrete task (analysis for boundaries, dependency graph, cross-project impact, overview, or engine-backed job mode). It distinguishes itself from codelattice_project by instructing to use that tool only after selecting a manifest-backed project root.

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?

'Use this on workspace roots; use codelattice_project only after selecting a manifest-backed project root' is an explicit routing rule with a condition and an alternative. It also signals large-workspace handling through the engine-backed job mode.

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