anythingllm_get_workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully cover the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., error handling, return format specifics) but also does not contradict the annotations. It simply reiterates the read-only nature of retrieving information, which is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose and one line for the argument. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. The output schema provides return structure, so return values are covered. The only minor gap is the lack of usage guidance relative to sibling tools (e.g., needing the slug from list_workspaces), but this is not critical for a straightforward read operation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by defining the slug parameter with inline examples ('papers', 'lands'), clarifying what a workspace slug looks like and what values to use. This goes well beyond the schema's bare 'Slug' title and fully explains the 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 action 'Get' and the resource 'workspace', specifying 'specific workspace' via a slug. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like anythingllm_list_workspaces (which lists all workspaces) and mutation tools like create/update/delete. The purpose is unambiguous and informative.

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. It does not mention list_workspaces for discovering slugs or clarify that this is for a single workspace read. The only implied usage is from the slug argument, but no explicit comparisons, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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