workspace_path

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 a key behavioral trait: it does not open the editor. This is important because the sibling tool likely opens the workspace. It also implies a read-only operation by returning a path. Error behavior and permissions are not mentioned, but for a simple lookup this is acceptable.

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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with an output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and the key behavioral distinction (not opening). However, the lack of parameter explanations, especially 'product_root', leaves gaps in understanding. The tool is simple enough that the description is mostly adequate, but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly references 'task' but does not explain the meaning or format of 'task' or 'product_root'. The optional 'product_root' parameter is completely unexplained, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 it returns the .code-workspace path for a task and explicitly notes it does not open the editor, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'open_workspace'. The verb 'returns' is specific and the resource (path) is unambiguous.

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 implies a usage context by contrasting with opening the editor: use this when you only need the path, not when you need to open the workspace. However, it doesn't explicitly name 'open_workspace' as the alternative, but the negation 'não abre o editor' serves as a clear when-not-to-use indicator.

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