whodb_platform_workspace_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value on top: it enumerates what the summary aggregates (scope, counts, highlights, gaps, next actions, recommended tools, warnings, lineage) and clarifies that workspace targeting is per-call and 'without changing defaults'.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, usage second, targeting semantics third. Nothing is redundant, though the third sentence partially overlaps with the schema's own workspace description.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the categories the summary returns and noting the goal parameter tailors highlights and recommendations. Workspace resolution path (hosts/orgs/projects/session_use) is documented in the schema. Complete enough for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents goal, fields, workspace, omit_files and omit_lineage. The description only restates the workspace targeting semantics, adding marginal meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Return a compact, goal-aware summary of the selected hosted project.' The phrase 'without drilling into every item' hints at how it differs from atomic siblings, but no sibling (e.g. workspace_map, project_health) is named, so differentiation must be inferred.

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?

Gives clear triggering context: 'Use this when the user asks what the platform project contains or what can be built.' However it offers no when-not guidance and never names an alternative, leaving the agent to infer that detail tools come after this overview.

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