Suggest workspace aliases

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

With no annotations, the description discloses side effects ('none beyond database reads') and failure modes ('returns an empty list when no fingerprints overlap'). This provides sufficient transparency for safe use.

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 labeled sections (Purpose, When to use, Inputs, etc.) and is concise with no redundant 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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, side effects, output, and failure modes comprehensively.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: 'alias_uri is the new path; fingerprints are observed durable identifiers.' This clarifies the nature of the parameters, especially 'fingerprints' as durable identifiers. Schema coverage is 100%.

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 tool's purpose: to suggest existing workspaces that may match a new alias URI based on identity fingerprints. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_workspace_aliases' and 'register_workspace_alias'.

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 guidance on when to use: 'call before creating a new workspace for a repo that may have moved.' This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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