capabilities

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds little beyond that: it does not say whether this is a listing of tool definitions, whether calling with 'workspace' switches the active workspace, or what the output looks like. With no output schema, more behavioral disclosure was needed.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so it is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. There is nothing front-loaded because nothing substantive is said.

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 no-required-parameter discovery tool with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description should explain what is enumerated and what the response contains. Instead it names four topic areas without connecting them to behavior or output, leaving real gaps for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 50% – 'workspace' is documented as a project path, but 'max_tokens' has no description at all. The phrase 'workspace selection' vaguely gestures at the workspace parameter but doesn't explain its effect (default project vs. switching), and max_tokens (default 2000, max 32000, presumably response truncation) is never addressed.

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 is a noun list ('Available tools, profiles, workspace selection, and optional enhancements') with no verb, so the agent must infer that this returns capability/discovery information. It does convey the resource domain (tooling/capabilities) and is not a pure restatement of the name, but it never says explicitly what the tool does or returns.

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 statement of when to call this versus the many siblings (bootstrap, project_summary, explore_codebase), nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The word 'Available tools' hints at a discovery role, but the agent is left to infer it.

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