Review workspace context

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses side effects ('records an MCP audit event'), output format ('compact review context with risks, reservations, handoffs, and lineage'), and failure modes ('returns limited context when workspace history is sparse'). This is comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 structured with clear bullet points (Purpose, When to use, Inputs, Side effects, Output, Failure modes). It is concise and front-loaded with essential information, every sentence adds value.

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 that an output schema exists (context signal), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage, inputs, side effects, and failure modes, making it fully complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond listing input names ('workspace, intent, optional file paths, symbols, agent name, and limit'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Summarize relevant reservations, handoffs, lineage, and recent activity before work starts.' It uses a specific verb ('summarize') and resource ('workspace context'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing its role as the initial review to avoid duplication or conflict.

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?

Explicitly says 'call at the beginning of a task to avoid duplicating or conflicting with other agents,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not specify when not to use or name alternatives, but the context with siblings makes the usage clear.

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