workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only diagnostic query (asking which directory is being navigated and why), but never states read-only semantics, permissions, or cost. With an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, which keeps this at a middling score.

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, and the usage trigger follows immediately after the purpose. The interrogative framing is slightly quirky for a tool description but costs little 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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic with an output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece: the failure condition under which to call it. The one gap is that it never plainly states what the tool returns or when it is irrelevant, but the output schema covers the return side.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies; the description has nothing to add or omit here.

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 is phrased as a question ("Which directory is webnav navigating, and why?") rather than a specific verb+resource statement, so the agent must infer that this tool reports the active workspace/checkout directory and its rationale. It conveys the topic area but not the concrete operation, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from code-navigation siblings like outline or diagnostics.

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 a clear, concrete trigger: "Use when results look like they come from the wrong checkout/worktree." This is an explicit situation in which to invoke the tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it is not a full 5.

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