workspace_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully discloses the persistent clangd process and module awareness, but it does not explain idempotency, blocking behavior, failure conditions, or what happens if the workspace is already open.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part adds meaning: the action, the target, and the key side effect.

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 stateful 7-parameter setup command with no annotations or output schema, the description plus schema is adequate but not complete. It lacks lifecycle guidance, prerequisites like compile_commands.json, and verification/return details, yet the core invocation path is clear.

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 high (86%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds only the general 'module-aware' concept and does not explain parameter tradeoffs beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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?

Description uses a specific verb/resource pair ('Open a C++ workspace') and adds a distinctive behavioral outcome ('start one persistent module-aware clangd process'), clearly separating it from siblings like workspace_warm or workspace_status.

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?

No guidance is given on when to call this versus alternatives such as workspace_status or workspace_refresh, nor whether it should be called once before other workspace commands. The implied use case is not stated explicitly.

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