Get Workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The phrase 'best-effort profile metadata' usefully warns that profile fields may be incomplete or unreliable, but it doesn't say what 'best-effort' actually means or what happens when the ID is unknown.

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 no filler and no repetition of the title. It is arguably too short for the 'best-effort' caveat it introduces, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A simple single-parameter read operation with full annotation coverage and an output schema, so the description needn't document return shape. It states the resource and the headline payload; only edge-case behavior (not found, partial metadata) is left implicit.

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% and there is only one parameter ('id', documented as 'Workspace ID'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline about ID format, source, or whether slugs are accepted.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource combination ('Get workspace details') that cleanly separates it from list_workspaces and the create/update/delete sibling family. It also names what comes back (profile metadata, direct URL), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with list_workspaces.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. needing a known workspace ID rather than a name), and no mention of when list_workspaces would be the better call. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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