workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the conceptual output (which directory, plus a reason), which is useful, but says nothing about safety, determinism, or whether it inspects git worktrees versus plain directories. Zero-parameter and clearly read-only by nature, yet that is inferred rather than stated.

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 'which directory' framing is front-loaded ahead of the usage trigger. The rhetorical-question style is slightly indirect for a tool definition, which keeps it from a 5.

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-param read tool with no output schema, the description should clarify the shape of the answer. It gestures at 'which directory ... and why' but never specifies what 'why' means (git worktree, symlink resolution, config), leaving the agent to discover the return semantics by calling it.

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 description coverage is reported at 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless 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 gets at the resource (the directory webnav is operating in) and hints at an explanatory payload ('and why'), but it is phrased as a rhetorical question rather than a statement of a verb+resource. The noun-only name 'workspace' does not disambiguate against code-navigation siblings like outline or diagnostics. An agent can infer it reports the active workspace root, but only with effort.

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 concrete trigger: 'Use when results look like they come from the wrong checkout/worktree.' That is a clear when-to-use condition tied to a real failure mode of the sibling navigation tools. It names no alternative (e.g., diagnostics) and gives no when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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