get_active_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Inspect' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation and the returned fields are named, but there is no statement about side effects, permissions/auth requirements, or behavior when no workspace matches.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler. The core capability is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is sufficient for a simple read-only tool. The only gap is the unaddressed behavior of the optional target_workspace filter (match failure semantics).

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%, so the single optional target_workspace parameter is already documented in the schema. The description never mentions the filtering parameter or what happens on a non-match, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data; baseline 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?

A specific verb ('Inspect') plus a specific resource ('live Antigravity IDE instances'), followed by the exact fields returned (workspace path, PID, port, connection status). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like dispatch_gemini_agent or list_active_jobs, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it: 'before dispatching file-modifying tasks to ensure the agent targets the correct workspace.' This gives clear context, but no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to skip it in favor of list_active_jobs).

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