Code MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't specify what happens if no workspace is set, whether it returns an absolute or relative path, or any error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters. Every word earns its place.

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 simple, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It doesn't explain what format the workspace path is returned in, what happens if no workspace is selected, or how this interacts with other workspace tools. The description meets basic requirements but lacks completeness for optimal agent understanding.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. A baseline of 4 is assigned since no parameter information is needed or expected.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('current workspace path'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workspaces' or 'auto_select_workspace', but the specific focus on the 'current' workspace provides some implicit distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_workspaces' or 'auto_select_workspace'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context requirements, or any scenarios where this tool would be preferred over other workspace-related tools in the sibling list.

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