Record workspace fingerprints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states side effects ('writes fingerprint rows'), output ('stored fingerprint records'), and failure modes ('fails when the workspace cannot be resolved or fingerprint payloads are malformed'). This covers key behavioral aspects, though details on auth, rate limits, or idempotency are missing.

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 highly concise and well-structured, using labeled sections (Purpose, When to use, Inputs, Side effects, Output, Failure modes). Every sentence is informative and earns its place, with crucial information front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage context, side effects, output, and failure modes. Nothing critical is omitted.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it rephrases 'workspace_id_or_uri' as 'selects the workspace' and 'fingerprints' as 'typed identity facts'. This provides slight additional context but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the specific verb 'store' and resource 'durable repository identity fingerprints' along with the purpose 'for alias detection'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'suggest_workspace_aliases' and 'register_workspace_alias' by focusing on storing fingerprints rather than aliases.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'call after discovering git remotes, first commits, or other stable repo identifiers on a workspace.' This is clear and contextual, though it does not include explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, which prevents a perfect score.

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