workspace_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Return' suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it describe potential latency or dependencies (e.g., whether it triggers warmup). This is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action ('Return') and lists all output categories. There is zero fluff, and every word contributes value.

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 description enumerates what the agent can expect, and given the absence of an output schema, this is necessary. It lacks detailed explanations of domain terms (e.g., 'readiness', 'coverage'), but for a focused status tool in a clangd context, these are likely understood.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers all (100%). Per rubric, baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no additional parameter meaning to convey.

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 explicitly states the tool returns specific status information (clangd readiness, warmup progress, module counts, PCM/modmap coverage, recent errors), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like workspace_open or workspace_refresh. It uses a specific verb (Return) and a concrete resource.

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 its usage as a status-check tool, and the context (sibling tools being actions rather than queries) makes it clear why an agent would call it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar purposes.

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