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 creation tool, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that creates resources.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 resource creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'workspace' represents in this context, what happens after creation, whether there are dependencies or constraints, or what the return value might be. The combination of mutation behavior and lack of structured metadata creates significant contextual gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description mentions 'instance type and cloud provider' as inputs, which aligns with two of the three parameters, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema documentation.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('workspace') with specific inputs ('from an instance type and cloud provider'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_instance_types', which appears to be a read-only counterpart rather than a direct alternative for creation.

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 or any prerequisites for its use. While it mentions 'instance type and cloud provider' as inputs, it doesn't clarify if this is the only way to create a workspace or if there are other methods available.

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

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 mentions 'Get available instance types' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter with full schema coverage) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations or output details, leaving the agent with incomplete context about the tool's full behavior and results.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'cloud_provider' well-documented in the schema, including an enum list. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the significance of the provider choice, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('available instance types for a cloud provider'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_workspace', which is unrelated, so it doesn't fully earn the highest score for sibling 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 or any prerequisites. It simply states what it does without context about timing, constraints, or comparisons to other tools, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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