Get workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of what is returned (permission level, enabled modules, group/public page details), which goes slightly beyond the annotations, but says nothing about auth requirements or the privacy consequences of include_contact_details.

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 fragment with no waste; the resource is stated first and the returned fields follow. It is terse to the point of reading like a field list rather than guidance, but nothing is padded.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields (name, permission, modules, group/public page details) gives the agent a useful sense of the payload. Combined with annotations covering safety, little essential information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both workspace_id and include_contact_details (including its redaction implications) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource and its scope ('One workspace'), which implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_workspaces. It clearly implies retrieval of a single workspace entity, though no explicit verb or explicit sibling routing statement is given.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_workspaces or the other workspace-scoped siblings like list_workspace_members or list_workspace_labels. The agent must infer that a single workspace is fetched by ID, with no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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