workspace_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what information is returned, not whether the operation is read-only or side-effect free. For a status tool, read-only behavior is implied but not explicitly disclosed.

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 short sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy for an agent to parse.

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 parameterless status tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently identifies the two key pieces of information returned: indexed content and script_docs load status. It doesn't specify output format, but the output schema covers that. Slight ambiguity about what 'currently indexed' includes could be clarified, but overall it is adequate.

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 accepts no parameters, and the input schema already documents this completely (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 identifies the tool as reporting workspace indexing status and whether script_docs are loaded. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'show', but it differentiates from sibling tools such as set_workspace or docs_report by specifying the exact state information returned.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like docs_report or set_workspace. The phrasing implies a status-checking use case, but there are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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