Create workspace

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), the description adds key behavioral context: the workspace is isolated and temporary, returns an id, can be seeded with files, and must be explicitly destroyed. It explains that all paths are relative to the workspace, which is vital for correct usage. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the optional seeding, then the crucial usage context and cleanup instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 modest complexity (one optional parameter, nested object), the description is fully complete. It covers the lifecycle, id-based addressing, path semantics, and cleanup, while the output schema (not shown but present) handles the return value. The description is sufficient for correct invocation in the context of sibling tools.

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 schema already describes the 'files' parameter with high coverage (100%), including an example. The description adds 'Optionally seeds it with files,' which reinforces optionality but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 creates an isolated temporary directory and returns its id. It also mentions optional file seeding, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_workspace, write_files, run_tests, and destroy_workspace. The verb 'creates' plus the resource 'workspace' and the specific behavior are unambiguous.

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 explicitly says every other tool addresses a workspace by this id and paths are relative to it, making it clear this is the entry point. It also instructs to call destroy_workspace when finished, providing explicit cleanup guidance and distinguishing when to use this tool versus when to stop using it.

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