get_workspace_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds valuable behavioral context: the default summary fields, the effect of each section value, and the caveat that 'raw' may exceed MCP size limits on proposal-class files. This goes beyond annotations and helps agents anticipate response size and content.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then providing concise but essential detail on the section parameter. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is well-organized, though it could be slightly more compact by trimming redundant phrasing.

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 complexity (one enum with six options) and absence of an output schema, the description does a good job covering the main behavior: default summary contents, section meanings, and size warning for raw. It doesn't cover error conditions or authentication, but those are covered by the read-only annotation and the optional origin parameter context. Overall, sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds significant semantics for the section parameter by explaining each enum value (pricing, agreement, payments, all, raw) and what they return. It also clarifies the default summary contents. For file_id and origin, the schema already provides adequate descriptions, so no extra value needed.

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 states the tool's function: 'Get detail for one workspace file.' It specifies the resource (workspace file) and the action (get detail), and differentiates from siblings by indicating this is for a single file while list_workspace_files handles listing. The default summary and section options further clarify 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?

The description implicitly guides when to use the tool—when you need detail on a single file—and explains how to use the section parameter to drill into specific parts. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (list_workspace_files, get_workspace) makes the distinction clear. It also warns about raw responses exceeding size limits, aiding safe usage.

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