Workspace Get Workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that - no mention of permission requirements, whether grants are needed, or the shape/mutability of the returned workspace.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. Its brevity is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values needn't be described), the description leaves the required parameter's format unexplained and gives no indication of what 'details' comprises or what authorization is needed, which is thin for a tool whose only input is an opaque identifier.

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 required parameter workspace_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not clarify whether the ID is a UUID, slug, or name, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a clear verb and resource ('Get workspace details'), which distinguishes it from the list/create/delete siblings in the workspace family. However, 'details' is vague about what is actually returned, and it never distinguishes itself from workspace_list_workspaces or the grant-related siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workspace_list_workspaces (to find a workspace_id) or the grants tools. The agent must infer that this is a single-resource fetch by ID from the name alone.

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