workspace_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing behavioral on top - no statement about error/not-found handling or what a successful lookup returns - beyond the id example.

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; the example is tucked in parenthetically where it does least harm. Slightly terse for a tool definition but never wasteful.

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 one required parameter, no enums, and an output schema already defined, the description needs only to convey lookup semantics and the id format. It covers purpose and a sample id but leaves the id's origin and failure behavior unstated, making it minimally adequate.

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, and it only partially does by giving an example id value ("w1") that hints at the expected string shape. It still doesn't say whether the id is the workspace name, slug, or opaque handle, nor how it is obtained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one workspace by id") and the singular framing clearly contrasts with a bulk retrieve. It does not explicitly name workspace_list as the alternative, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

"Get one workspace" implies a targeted lookup as opposed to workspace_list's enumeration, but the description never states when to use this versus workspace_list or what to do if the id is unknown. Usage is only inferable from the numbering.

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