workspaceevents_discover

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the key behavioral detail that operational workspaceevents tools are 'hidden until discovered' and that this tool reveals them—valuable context not in annotations. It doesn't mention response format, but for a list/discovery operation this is acceptable.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and usage instruction. The long list of operation names is necessary content for a discovery tool, but it adds length. Overall, every sentence serves a purpose and the structure is clear.

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?

The tool is a simple discovery operation with good annotations and full schema coverage for its single optional parameter. The description explains the hidden-tool mechanism and lists all discoverable operations, making the tool's behavior self-contained. No output schema exists, but the description's operation list partially substitutes for that.

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 has one optional parameter 'query' with a description 'Keyword to filter the returned operations', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'List the available workspaceevents operations.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workspaceevents operations'), and the discovery role is distinct from sibling discover tools. The enumeration of operation names further clarifies the scope.

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 instructs when to use this tool: 'call this first, then call the tool you need by name.' This provides a clear sequential workflow, and the context of sibling discover tools makes it obvious that each discover tool covers a different service. No alternatives are excluded but none are needed.

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