Get workspace coordination policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Side effects: none beyond database reads,' 'Output: current conflict policy and related coordination settings,' and 'Failure modes: fails when the workspace cannot be resolved.' This fully discloses behavior.

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 extremely concise with clear labels (Purpose, When to use, Inputs, Side effects, Output, Failure modes). Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, input, behavioral side effects, output, and failure modes. No gaps remain.

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% and the description says 'Inputs: workspace_id_or_uri identifies the workspace.' This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's description ('Workspace UUID, root URI, or alias URI whose policy should be read.'). Baseline 3 is appropriate due to high schema coverage.

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 description explicitly states 'Purpose: Read reservation and conflict policy for a workspace.' It uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('reservation and conflict policy'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_workspace_coordination_policy' and reservation tools.

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 says 'When to use: call before reserving files or symbols in a multi-agent workflow.' This provides clear context and timing, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. However, it effectively guides the agent to use this tool before reservation actions.

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