get_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and discloses the return content by listing what status information is included. It does not cover error behavior or auth, but for a simple status tool this is reasonably complete.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately lists the relevant details. There is no filler or redundant information.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a useful summary of the return fields (git status, saved tabs, tab history, notes, staleness). It is sufficient for understanding what the tool will deliver, though it could have added a note about error cases or when not to use it.

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 input schema already documents the only parameter 'name' with description and examples, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond referring to a 'specific workspace', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('detailed status of a specific workspace') and lists the status categories (git status, saved tabs, tab history, notes, staleness). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_workspaces or get_workspace_tree by emphasizing a single workspace.

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 phrase 'specific workspace' implies the tool is for retrieving details of one known workspace by name. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_stale_workspaces or search_workspaces, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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