workbench-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool sends an HTTP HEAD request (implying it's a read-only operation for metadata), mentions authentication handling ('Pass `jwt_token` to override the default environment token'), and notes a constraint ('`headers.Authorization` is ignored; use `jwt_token` instead'). However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, error responses, or output format, leaving some gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by specific usage and parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, 3 parameters, and an output schema present, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key parameter semantics, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or exact output structure. The output schema mitigates some of this, but for a tool with authentication nuances, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 adds meaning for parameters: it explains the purpose of `jwt_token` ('to override the default environment token') and clarifies that `headers.Authorization` is ignored in favor of `jwt_token`. However, it doesn't detail the `url` parameter or other possible headers, and with 3 parameters total, this partial coverage is good but not comprehensive.

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: 'Send an HTTP HEAD request.' It specifies the verb (send) and resource (HTTP HEAD request), and distinguishes it from siblings like http_get, http_post, etc., by mentioning it's for 'metadata/status checks without retrieving a full body.' This is specific and avoids tautology.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use for metadata/status checks without retrieving a full body.' It also distinguishes it from alternatives by implying that for full body retrieval, other HTTP methods (like http_get) would be more appropriate. This is clear and contextually helpful.

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