workspace_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful operational context: the workspace is read-only-ish local content and paths must resolve inside the workspace root. It does not mention how long files are truncated or that paging exists, though the schema's offset/maxChars cover that mechanically.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then path rules, then the selection condition. The workspace enumeration is dense but load-bearing, since it tells the agent what is actually reachable.

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 simple read-only tool with all three parameters documented and safety covered by annotations; the description supplies the path-resolution rule and the eligibility condition. The only gap is the shape of a folder listing (names vs. entries), which no output schema documents.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description earns the bump by stating the path resolution rule (relative to workspace root, or absolute but inside it), which the schema's example does not convey. offset/maxChars semantics are left entirely to the schema, which documents them adequately.

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?

States a concrete verb pair (read file / list folder) against a named resource (the eh kernel workspace) and enumerates the workspace sections it covers (AGENTS.md, flow/, skills/, APJS/, reference/, Planning/). The boundary with docs_read/docs_search is only implied by the word 'workspace' rather than stated, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition: 'Use it when your client cannot read local files.' That is a real selection rule rather than vague context. It does not name the alternative (docs_read) for packaged documentation, so the exclusion side is incomplete.

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