get_workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes status flags such as has_sent_files, has_signed_files, has_paid_payments, which is useful output context, but it doesn't disclose error behavior or other response characteristics.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence that states the action and key output in an efficient way. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only getter with a required ID and no output schema, the description gives enough orientation: it promises full detail and names representative status flags. It could be slightly richer about what 'full detail' includes, but the schema already supplies the parameter context.

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 covers all parameters (workspace_id, origin) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond mentioning status flags, which relate to the response rather than parameters.

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 identifies the resource ('workspace (vendor project)') with a concrete output detail ('status flags'). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like get_project or get_workspace_file.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the intended trigger or context is only implied by the name and required workspace_id. There are no exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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