Get Workspace

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: 'best-effort profile metadata' indicates that metadata retrieval may be incomplete or opportunistic, and 'direct URL' mentions an output component. These are behavioral traits not covered by annotations, and there is no contradiction.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and includes only high-value additions ('best-effort profile metadata', 'direct URL'). Every word earns its place with no filler or restatement.

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 simple get-by-id operation with a single required parameter, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is adequate and complete. It does not over-explain return values (output schema covers that) but includes behavioral nuances. Minor gaps around error cases or explicit usage alternatives are not critical for this simple tool.

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 coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'id' described as 'Workspace ID'. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter's format, constraints, or usage beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'workspace details', adding 'with best-effort profile metadata and a direct URL' to clarify what data is returned. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_workspaces (list all workspaces) and create/update/delete mutations.

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 for retrieving a single workspace by ID via the required 'id' parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_workspaces, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative tool names. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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