Use Workspace

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description reveals significant behaviors: per-workspace freecadcmd process, independent ActiveDocument and handle registry, handles not crossing workspaces, pool cap, idle reaping with env vars, raising on a full pool, and the 'default' behavior. This is substantial added context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence adds necessary operational detail (isolation, pooling, reaping, default, return shape). No filler is present.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers how to call it, when, what constraints apply (unique name, pool cap), error behavior, and the exact return shape. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema provides no description for the required 'name' (0% coverage), but the description supplies its meaning: a unique identifier per agent, used once up front, with 'default' as a special value to return to the baseline workspace.

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 first sentence names a concrete action ('Claim... an isolated workspace') and a clear effect ('make it the target of subsequent tool calls'). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_workspaces and close_workspace by framing it as the claim/switch operation.

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?

It explicitly states when to call it: once, up front, by each concurrent agent sharing the server, and says to pass 'default' for the baseline workspace. It does not explicitly contrast with list_workspaces/close_workspace or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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