get_cross_workspace_insights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose any side effects, limitations, data scope, or permission requirements. The description is too brief to inform an agent about behavioral aspects.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, but it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what kind of insights are returned, how results are structured, or any usage context relative to siblings.

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%, but the description mentions the three workspace types which correspond to the enum in workspace_types, adding some meaning. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or any constraints on workspace_types.

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 states it aggregates insights across specific workspaces (Sales, Support, UX), which gives a clear verb-resource pair. However, 'insights' is vague and doesn't distinguish from similar aggregation tools like aggregate_insights_by_theme.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aggregate_insights_by_theme or generate_trend_analysis. There are many sibling tools, and the description fails to explain what differentiates this cross-workspace aggregation.

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