workspace_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the useful constraint that local paths and historical content are not exposed, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not clarify what 'availability and scope' concretely returns or when the check might fail.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the action. It is efficient, though its brevity may contribute to the overall vagueness noted elsewhere.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values. Still, for a health-check tool among several workspace siblings, it should do more to define what is being checked and why an agent would call it, leaving a material gap in distinguishing its role.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for parameter documentation, and it appropriately focuses on the operation rather than 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 states what the tool checks, availability and scope, but the phrasing is abstract and does not clearly distinguish it from siblings like workspace_recall or workspace_checkpoint. It does not name a specific resource being inspected beyond 'workspace', making the purpose only loosely clear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus workspace_recall, workspace_checkpoint, or the artifact tools. The agent must infer its role from the name alone.

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