get_workspace_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it flags placeholder model names and missing prefix, and clarifies that projectName/projectPath are ignored unless the user changed the project. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not describe return format or error behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important instruction ('ALWAYS call FIRST at session start'). Every sentence provides distinct value: what returns, flags, param usage, and authority. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description lists the key returned fields and behavioral nuances. It covers invocation timing, parameter conditions, and authoritative scoping. The annotations and schema handle safety and parameter details, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds extra meaning by reinforcing when projectName/projectPath should be used and explaining why projectName is not a model name (selecting none if named). This supplements the schema without duplicating it.

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 returns workspace configuration (model name, package path, framework directory, project path, environment type, EXTENSION_PREFIX). It also explicitly distinguishes itself as the authoritative source for the target model, unlike search results, which differentiates it from sibling tools like search and get_object_info.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'ALWAYS call FIRST at session start.' It also specifies when to use parameters ('projectName/projectPath ONLY when the USER changed project') and warns against misuse ('NOT a model name'). It further sets an exclusion: 'not search results,' clarifying when not to use it.

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