Docflow Get 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 states the tool returns workspace metadata including name, description, auth_scope, and statistics, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires special permissions, what happens if the workspace doesn't exist (error behavior), or any rate limits. The description is a simple GET, so read-only is implied but not 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and endpoint, followed by return-value details. It is concise and every sentence adds information. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers the main purpose and the key metadata fields. However, with no annotations and no parameter semantics, an agent might not know how to obtain workspace_id or what errors to expect. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 only mentions 'workspace_id' implicitly via the endpoint. It doesn't explain what workspace_id is, where to find it, or its format. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare type declaration. With only one parameter, the description should have at least explained how to obtain the workspace_id.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: getting detailed information about a specific workspace, and even includes the endpoint path. It distinguishes itself from siblings like docflow_list_workspaces (which lists workspaces) and docflow_get_or_create_workspace (which creates if missing), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies usage: call this when you need details about a specific workspace. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like docflow_list_workspaces for listing all workspaces. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but no explicit routing guidance is provided.

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