Creates a workspace with one tab and one shell pane, returning the workspace, tab, and root pane IDs so you can start work in a new session.
Create a workspace with one tab and one shell pane. Returns the new workspace, tab and root_pane ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | ||
| focus | No | ||
| label | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the concrete side effects (a tab and a shell pane are created) and the returned ids. It does not warn that focus=true may steal UI focus, which is the one notable omission.
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 sentences, zero filler, and the side-effect statement is front-loaded ahead of the return-value note. Every clause carries information.
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?
Return values are covered (and an output schema exists anyway), and the creation side effects are stated. But for a zero-required-param creation tool whose optional arguments are fully undocumented, an agent still lacks enough to call it correctly with cwd/label/focus.
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% across all three parameters (cwd, focus, label), and the description never mentions any of them. The reader must guess whether label names the workspace or the tab, and what cwd defaults to for the shell pane.
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?
Specific verb + resource ('Create a workspace') plus the exact composition it produces (one tab, one shell pane) and the identifiers returned. An agent can distinguish this from tab_create or worktree_create without opening any schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: the reader infers this is the entry point before splitting panes or creating extra tabs, but the description never states when to use this versus tab_create or workspace_get. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.