Load Workspace Config

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a non-mutating read, and the description partly restates that (只读, 不创建文件). Its real added value is disclosing the failure mode (returns config_missing rather than creating anything), which annotations do not convey; beyond that it says nothing about permissions, resolution order, or partial configs.

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?

A single compact clause, front-loaded with the read-only character and the missing-file behavior; no filler. Every phrase carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are covered elsewhere, and the missing-config behavior is stated. What is missing is any treatment of workspace_root semantics and the relationship to init_workspace_config, which matters even for a one-parameter tool.

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 0% and the single parameter workspace_root has no description, default documented only as null. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, but it never mentions workspace_root, what null/default means, or how the root is resolved — so the parameter remains ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb (只读加载/read-only load) and resource (工作区配置/workspace config), and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling init_workspace_config by stressing it does not create files. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

It gives one concrete usage-relevant condition — when the config is missing the tool returns config_missing instead of provisioning — which implies init_workspace_config is the alternative for that case. However, it never explicitly says 'use this to read, use init_workspace_config to create', leaving the routing to inference.

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