Read project workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing the specific categories of info it reports (areas, axes, document kinds, changelog types, memory collections) and the 'effective' workspace qualifier. No specific output/pagination details, but the output schema exists to cover that.

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 concise sentences. The first states the purpose precisely, the second gives actionable usage guidance. No wasted words — every sentence earns its place.

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?

A parameterless read tool with strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and an output schema. The description adds the crucial 'read this first' sequencing guidance and enumerates the domain categories it covers. Complete for this tool's complexity.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema fully documents the input surface (100% coverage, empty properties object). With no params, the baseline is 4 — and the description correctly focuses on what the tool RETURNS rather than inputs, which is appropriate 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 states it returns 'the effective Workfile workspace, schema, enabled modules and mutation mode' — a specific verb+resource combination. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but 'read this first' hints at its foundational role among the many project_* tools.

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 explicitly says 'Read this first when a vocabulary is project-declared' and enumerates what it reports (areas, axes, document kinds, changelog types, memory collections). It provides clear context for when to invoke it, though it doesn't name specific alternative tools to exclude.

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