get_workspace_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and listing the return fields (name, slug, plan, limits) makes the behavioral outcome concrete. It doesn't mention auth requirements or error behavior, but for a parameterless info getter this is a minor gap, not a serious one.

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, front-loaded sentence states the action, target, and return contents with no filler or redundancy. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only info tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool does and what data it will receive in response. Nothing essential is missing.

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 is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description accurately reinforces the no-input nature by stating what information is retrieved without referencing any arguments.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a precise resource ('current workspace's info'), then enumerates the exact fields returned: name, slug, plan, and limits. This distinguishes it clearly from all sibling tools, none of which target workspace metadata.

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 phrase 'current workspace's info' establishes the clear context: use this when you need workspace identity, subscription plan, or quota/limit details. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but there are no closely related workspace-info siblings to route around, so the guidance is adequate.

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