get_workspace_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the read action but does not mention whether it is read-only, performance implications, or what the tree structure includes (e.g., whether it includes all workspaces across all users/groups). There is no disclosure of side effects or limitations.

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 sentences, action first, no filler. Every word earns its place, making it concise and easy to parse.

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 (no params, no output schema), the description provides a clear concept of what is returned (tree of workspaces) and implies it covers the full hierarchy. However, it could benefit from noting whether all workspaces are included regardless of user/group, but for a simple tool this is adequate.

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 the schema's coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('full workspace hierarchy'), and the distinctive format ('tree structure... parent-child relationships'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workspaces (flat list) and get_workspace (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 description implies the tool is for when you need hierarchical relationships, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_workspaces or search_workspaces, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions. Usage context is implied by the tree-structure wording.

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