suggest_workspace

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool returns candidate paths with hints, is safe to call, and describes the output structure. However, it could mention potential side effects or edge cases, but for a suggestion tool, this is sufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with purpose. It is clear and to the point, though the mentioned return structure could be placed earlier for even better structure. No unnecessary sentences.

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 has no parameters and an output schema described in text, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, safety, workflow, and return format. It references sibling tools and provides complete context for an agent to use 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?

There are no parameters, so the description adds all meaning beyond the empty schema. It explains the tool's purpose and return format, meeting the baseline for 0 parameters. The description could be slightly more detailed about the output keys, but it is adequate.

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 uses the verb 'Suggest' and specifies the resource 'OS-appropriate workspace directory candidates'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_workspace by outlining the workflow, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Always safe to call', the workflow of proposing one candidate and seeking confirmation before calling set_workspace, and noting that custom paths are acceptable. This leaves no ambiguity about when and how to use the tool.

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