get_beads_across_workspaces

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries behavior disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns aggregated counts, per-workspace breakdown, and totals, and that parent filtering scopes results. It does not specify output format, default status handling, or empty-workspace 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?

Two focused sentences: first states core function, second explains filtering. No redundant or filler content.

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-only aggregation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope filter, and return summary. It could mention output shape/edge cases, but it is adequate for selection and basic usage.

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?

Input schema already describes both optional parameters (parent, status) with 100% coverage. The description adds only the same parent-prefix example already in the schema, so no significant semantic value beyond structured fields.

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?

Clearly states it aggregates beads task counts across multiple workspaces and provides a per-workspace breakdown/totals, distinguishing it from sibling list_beads via the across-workspace aggregation scope.

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?

Gives clear usage context: use for aggregation across multiple workspaces and scope via parent prefix or omit for all. Does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_beads or summarize_all, so not a 5.

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