Get workspace details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and world-model expectations. The description adds minimal behavioral context by enumerating what a workspace contains (agreed conditions, deadline, current state), which gives some expectation of the response contents. It does not disclose details like whether the workspace state is cached, whether additional fields exist, or how errors surface, but with strong annotations the bar is lower.

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 compact, front-loaded phrase that wastes no words. The colon structure efficiently lists the key attributes of the resource. It could be improved with an explicit verb, but as conciseness it is excellent.

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 simple read-only tool with a clear schema, the description gives enough context about the meaning of a workspace to be minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no mention of the required workspace_id, an agent may not fully understand how to complete the call or what exact return shape to expect. The description is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. It does not mention workspace_id or kind, nor explain how to specify which workspace. Since the description is the only textual source for parameter semantics and it is empty on that front, this dimension fails.

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's 'One workspace' clearly signals a singular resource, distinguishing it from list-type siblings like list_workspaces. The title 'Get workspace details' supplies the verb, and the description identifies the relevant content (agreed conditions, deadline, current state), so an agent can infer the tool retrieves a single workspace's details. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it just misses a 5.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like list_workspaces or get_thread. The phrase 'One workspace' implies singular retrieval, but there is no stated condition, prerequisite, or exclusion. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and context.

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