set_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: docs_dir being 'strongly recommended; several checks are skipped without it,' mod_roots precedence ('later entries win'), and game override for auto-detection. It does not mention potential side effects like whether indexing creates cache files or modifies workspace state, but it provides substantial behavioral context beyond a minimal statement.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence lead followed by clear parameter explanations. There is no redundant text, and each parameter explanation adds unique value. The formatting with indentation improves readability without padding.

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 setup tool with four parameters and no annotations, this description is highly complete. It explains the purpose, all parameters with domain meaning, and a critical caveat (docs_dir impact). Since an output schema exists, return values do not need to be described. The tool is complex, and the description covers all essential operational aspects.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently: game_root specifies the install directory with a note about common/ or game/ layouts, mod_roots explains load order and precedence, docs_dir identifies the script_docs output and its importance, and game lists allowed values. This goes far beyond the bare schema and gives the agent actionable guidance.

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 function: 'Point the server at a vanilla game tree, optional mod trees, and an optional script_docs dump, then index everything.' The verb 'point' and the resource list (game tree, mod trees, docs dump) make the purpose specific and differentiate it from sibling tools like read_block or search_script_docs, which operate on an already-set-up workspace.

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 this is the initialization/setup tool, as it says 'point the server at' and 'then index everything,' which is clearly a prerequisite for using the read/search/validate tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5 but provides clear context.

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