workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the diagnostic scenario the tool serves but never states whether the operation is read-only or mutates state (e.g., switches workspace), nor what permissions are needed. The interrogative phrasing leans read-only but the ambiguity is unresolved.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the purpose question is front-loaded and the usage condition follows. The interrogative framing is slightly informal for a tool description but wastes no space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be in the description. For a zero-parameter, near-certainly read-only diagnostic, purpose plus trigger condition is nearly enough; only the read-only/side-effect question is left open.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-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 conveys that the tool reports which directory codenav is navigating and the rationale for it, which separates it from the navigation siblings. However, the tool name 'workspace' is generic and the description is phrased as a question rather than a clear verb+resource statement, so an agent has to infer whether this is a getter, a setter, or a config inspector. Purpose is discernible but not crisply stated.

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?

It gives an explicit triggering condition: 'Use when results look like they come from the wrong checkout/worktree.' This tells the agent exactly when to reach for it over the navigation siblings. It does not name a specific alternative, but the context is clear enough.

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