medeval_get_workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it reads a summary and integrity counters, which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on what integrity counters are or any side effects (though none expected). It does not contradict annotations.

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 leads with the primary verb and object. It includes the essential noun phrase and no filler. This is appropriately brief for a simple read operation, with zero wasted words.

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 read-only tool with an output schema already defining return values, the description touches the core behavior. However, it lacks any mention of how to identify the workspace or what 'integrity counters' entail. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, this is adequate but minimal—nothing critical is missing, but more context could be added.

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 only parameter, workspace_id, is required but has no description in the schema (coverage 0%). The description does not explain what a workspace_id is, how to obtain it, or any format expectations. While the name is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, which is a real deficiency for a single-parameter tool.

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 states a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('workspace summary and integrity counters'), indicating it retrieves workspace-level information. This differentiates it from siblings like medeval_get_run or medeval_get_task_progress, though 'integrity counters' is somewhat vague. Overall, the purpose is understandable and distinct.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when it is appropriate, or any exclusions. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from context. Given the large sibling set, this is a notable gap.

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