workspace_triage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait, that the default call returns a compact summary and section narrows the payload, but it says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, payload size, or what happens with an invalid section value.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core identity, then the default behavior, then the parameter enumeration. No filler and nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully enumerated. The only remaining gap is the absence of a read-only/side-effect statement now that no annotations are supplied.

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 coverage is 0% and 'section' is typed as a bare anyOf string with no enum, so the description is the only source of valid values; it supplies all seven (radar, prs, issues, discussions, registry, git, warnings). It stops short of saying whether invalid or multiple values are accepted, which keeps it from a 5.

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 resource clearly, a machine-readable snapshot of Lab state, and enumerates its constituent sections (radar, prs, issues, discussions, registry, git, warnings), which effectively defines scope. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings such as lab_map or session_bootstrap, 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?

It gives useful guidance on calling conventions: omit section for a compact summary, pass section to target a part. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over lab_map, explore, or session_bootstrap, so usage relative to alternatives is only implied.

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