workspace_focus

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds nothing on top: it doesn't say whether the switch changes persistent UI state, affects subsequent agent commands, or what happens to the previously focused workspace. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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 short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. Its brevity borders on under-specification, 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description leaves key gaps for a state-changing focus tool: the source/format of workspace_id and the effect the switch has on subsequent tool calls. For a 1-param mutation sibling to several *_focus tools, this is too thin.

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 0% for the single required workspace_id, and the description never says what form the identifier takes or where to obtain it (e.g., from workspace_list). With one undocumented parameter, the description should compensate and does not.

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?

"Switch the user's view to a workspace" gives a specific verb and resource, and the word "view" distinguishes it from tab_focus and agent_focus, which act on tabs and agents. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the near-identical siblings (tab_focus, agent_focus) that an agent could easily confuse it with. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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