workspace_get

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' plus 'metadata' implies a non-mutating read, and the field list tells the agent what is retrieved, but there is no mention of permission requirements, behavior on an invalid or unknown workspaceId, or rate limits. Adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with the trigger condition first and the returned fields second, with no wasted preamble. The field enumeration partially duplicates the schema's default value, costing a little tightness but aiding scannability.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description plus schema cover what an agent needs: what is fetched, which fields are available, and how to identify the workspace. The lack of an output schema is offset by the field list, though return shape (object vs. nested prefs) remains unspecified.

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% — both workspaceId ('Trello workspace id or short name') and fields (with a default list) are fully documented in the schema. The description's field enumeration loosely mirrors the fields parameter but adds no format or syntax guidance beyond it, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource ('basic Trello workspace metadata') and enumerates the concrete fields returned (display name, description, URL, website, board ids, preferences), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like workspace_boards or workspace_members. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use when you need basic Trello workspace metadata' gives a clear trigger condition but offers no exclusions or alternatives — it never says to call list_workspaces first to discover a workspaceId or to use workspace_boards when boards are the actual target. Usage is implied rather than fully routed.

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