Get Workspace Capabilities

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

Annotations provide strong safety signals (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description needs less behavioral disclosure. The description adds context about the content (namespaces, consent capabilities, file-transfer choices) but does not elaborate on broader behavior like openWorldHint implications or whether results are cached. Since annotations already communicate the safe, read-only nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without fluff or redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

With zero parameters, a safe read-only annotation set, and an output schema present, the tool's description covers the necessary context well. The description outlines the three main output domains (namespaces, consent, file-transfer), which is sufficient guidance. Slightly more context about the tool's role in the overall workspace workflow could elevate it, but it is generally complete.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description compensates by enriching what the agent should expect in the output (namespaces, consent, file-transfer), which provides semantic value beyond the empty schema. A baseline of 4 for zero params is justified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') and identifies a distinct resource ('workspace capabilities' including namespaces, consent capabilities, and file-transfer choices). It clearly distinguishes the tool's broad informational scope from sibling tools like get_google_connection_status or refresh_workspace_catalog, though it doesn't explicitly name a differentiating sibling.

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 implies this is the go-to tool for exploring workspace capabilities, which is a natural fit given sibling tools like connect_google_workspace or prepare_workspace_action. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring an active connection.

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