workspace_open

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns a private localhost editor URL and does not open a browser tab, which is important because the name 'workspace_open' could imply a side effect.

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 short sentences contain no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the tool returns, and the second sentence immediately disambiguates the tool's behavior. 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?

Given the low complexity, zero parameters, and annotations already covering read-only status, the description is complete. It tells an agent what will be returned and explicitly rules out the browser-tab side effect, which is all that is needed to call the tool correctly.

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 there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The description focuses on the returned resources instead, which is appropriate for a parameterless fetch operation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names distinct resources: capabilities, templates, documents, and the private localhost editor URL. It also explicitly clarifies what the tool does not do ('Does not open a browser tab'), which prevents confusion with the 'open' part of the tool name and with sibling tools like preview_render.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: when the agent needs workspace capabilities, templates, documents, or the private editor URL without opening a browser tab. It provides an explicit exclusion but does not name any alternative sibling tools or give a when-not-to-use beyond the browser-tab clarification.

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