tcai_workspace_state

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral details beyond the subject matter. It neither states that the operation is read-only nor describes any side effects, return format, or access-history implications. With no annotations to rely on, this is insufficient.

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 a single concise line with a colon-delimited list. It is easily scannable, though it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, which slightly reduces structural completeness.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the agent should expect as a result. It lists state components but omits return format, invocation context, or how it relates to similar state tools. More contextual detail is needed for a tool in a complex workspace environment.

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, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description need not explain parameters, and it doesn't. Baseline of 4 for zero-param tools applies.

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 identifies the subject (Global Neuronal Workspace state) and lists key components (ignition, focus, qualia, sync R, unity metrics, access history), but lacks a verb to clarify whether this retrieves, sets, or monitors state. It does distinguish somewhat from siblings that focus on other subsystem states, but remains vague about the exact action.

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 is provided on when to invoke this tool instead of alternatives like wm_status or get_metrics. The description does not mention any preconditions, typical scenarios, or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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