ck_workspace_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that register creates an agent (only one primary allowed), update changes scope/budget/status, list returns all agents, health gives an aggregated indicator, and retire deactivates. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., what happens on duplicate primary registration), authorization requirements, or rate limits. The description adds some context but is incomplete.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It efficiently conveys the main concepts and modes. While it could be better structured (e.g., bullet points for modes), there is no superfluous information.

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 complexity (11 parameters, multiple modes, nested objects, enums, and an output schema), the description is minimal. It explains modes but does not specify which parameters are relevant per mode, nor does it clarify behavior when multiple parameters are combined. The output schema likely covers return values, but usage details remain vague. Additional guidance would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds overarching context about modes and role constraints, but does not provide additional details on parameter usage or relationships beyond what the schema already provides. The schema descriptions are adequate, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 it manages workspace agent roles and enumerates specific modes (register, update, list, health, retire). It distinguishes between agent types (primary, specialized, ephemeral) and constraints (only one primary per workspace). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ck_delegate or ck_copilot, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 implies when to use the tool (to manage agent roles) and lists modes, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It mentions 'only one primary per workspace' but lacks context on prerequisite conditions or error scenarios.

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