get_workspace_edit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly given; the description still adds real context by listing what is returned (approval status with the local approval command while pending, and the application receipt once applied) and by stating it never mutates approval state. It stops short of covering errors, e.g. what happens for an unknown or already-applied edit_id.

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 scope statement is front-loaded, and the two sibling redirects at the end are compact and useful. The middle clause runs long as a single comma-chained list of return fields, which is dense but not padded.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, this is complete: an agent knows what it fetches, what it returns, that it is side-effect free, and which sibling to use instead.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there (including the EDIT-/BATCH- id format), so the schema carries the burden. The description's enumeration of target path, diffs and hashes describes return values rather than adding meaning to edit_id or project_id, so it adds no parameter-level guidance beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (read) and a precisely scoped resource (one direct edit of the project's original files, or a multi-file batch), then enumerates the payload: target path, diffs, before/after hashes, approval status, application receipt. It is immediately distinguishable from get_approval_status and get_task_result, which it names.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from two siblings with their selecting conditions: 'For task plan approvals use get_approval_status; for a task's own file writes see get_task_result.' It also forecloses a misuse ('it never approves anything'), so when-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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