focus_get_workspace_context

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that it caches IDs, reads from environment variables, and intentionally avoids a session endpoint. However, it does not address failure behavior (e.g., missing env vars), potential side effects of caching, or whether this is a read-only operation. This is moderate disclosure but not complete.

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 three sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the core resolution task, caching behavior, and a relevant note about API key usage. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 output schema, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (presumably resolved IDs). While the parameter semantics are covered and the tool is relatively simple, the lack of return-value explanation and limited behavioral detail (e.g., no indication of read-only nature) leaves gaps. Given the tool's context-resolution role, a return format description would be expected.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, explaining defaults from environment variables or cached context. The description adds extra semantic context by mentioning 'current_workspace_id from settings when needed', which goes beyond the schema. This additional nuance justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 states the tool's role: resolving organization_id and workspace_id from env/args, and caching them for later tools. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on specific resources like timers or projects. However, it does not explicitly state the output format or what a successful invocation returns, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description implies this tool is a prerequisite for other tools by mentioning it 'Caches IDs for later tools' and instructing to set environment variables. It also notes an endpoint is not used with API keys, which is useful context. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements, leaving the usage window inferential rather than direct.

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