setup_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'returns setup completeness' and a 'readiness percentage and actionable recommendations,' which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or non-destructive, though 'health check' implies this. The description could add a note about no side effects.

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-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. The list of checked items is compact, and the usage guidance is integrated seamlessly.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns (readiness percentage and recommendations), and when to use it. No critical missing context is apparent.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers them trivially. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to add parameter details since there are none.

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's purpose: 'Run a full health check on the OutreachPilot workspace.' It lists the specific resources checked (email accounts, ICP config, knowledge base, folders, contacts, campaigns, credits) and the output (readiness percentage, recommendations). This distinguishes it from sibling CRUD tools like list_contacts or get_campaign.

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 explicitly says 'Use this FIRST when starting a new conversation to understand what's configured and what needs setup.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not name specific alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'first' guidance is sufficient for a health check tool.

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