workspace_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance beyond annotations: the privacy constraint 'Does not reveal another holder's lease_id' and the conditional behavior 'With lease_id, reports that lease.' These are non-obvious details that help the agent understand side effects and limitations.

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 long, front-loads the core purpose, then adds an edge-case behavior and usage timing. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values need not be described) and annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior, the description covers the main purpose, conditional lease handling, a privacy caveat, and workflow timing. A minor gap is the missing explanation of how project and lease_id interact, but overall the tool is adequately specified.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains lease_id ('With lease_id, reports that lease') and implies 'project' refers to the workspace whose status is reported. However, it does not clarify the relationship between the two parameters, whether either is required, or what happens when both are provided. This leaves some ambiguity.

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 starts with 'Report whether a project workspace is free, held, or expired,' which clearly states a specific verb ('report') and resource ('project workspace') and enumerates the possible statuses. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like workspace_acquire and workspace_release, which perform different actions.

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 instruction 'Use after LEASE_BUSY or before acquire' provides explicit timing context, telling the agent when to call this tool in a workflow. It does not explicitly name an alternative to avoid, but the contrast with 'acquire' and the presence of workspace_acquire/workspace_release siblings makes the intended usage clear.

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