workspace_warm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately discloses that the operation is non-blocking and that status should be polled, which is valuable. However, it does not explain side effects, preconditions (e.g., whether a workspace must be open), or any resource implications, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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?

Two sentences, both essential. The first states the core action, the second gives the follow-up instruction and reassures about availability. No fluff or repetition.

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 simple tool (no output schema, two optional params), the description covers the core start-and-poll behavior but omits important context: what 'AST warmup' involves, preconditions, the meaning of 'limit', and the exact effect on the workspace. It is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 description does not mention parameters at all. The schema describes 'files' but 'limit' lacks a semantic description, and overall schema coverage is only 50%. The description fails to compensate for the missing limit explanation, leaving its meaning ambiguous beyond the default/max/min constraints.

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 action: 'Start non-blocking AST warmup.' It specifies a concrete verb and resource, and the follow-up instruction 'Poll workspace_status' clarifies the intended workflow. This distinguishes it from siblings like workspace_refresh or workspace_open by emphasizing its non-blocking warmup nature.

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 clear context: it is non-blocking, so the agent should use workspace_status to check progress, and other MCP tools remain usable in the meantime. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'poll workspace_status' instruction effectively guides when to use this tool and what to do next.

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