inspect_workspace

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Without repair' is a genuine disclosure that the call is non-mutating and safe to run, but nothing is said about whether it requires an initialized workspace, how expensive it is, or whether results are cached or live.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is the right size for a no-argument tool. The only weakness is that the noun list relies on undefined domain terms, so density comes at the cost of readability.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of truth about what comes back. Enumerating the inspected facets is a partial answer, but an agent still cannot tell the shape of the result (per-family? per-envelope? a single blob?) or what 'recovery facts' entails.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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?

Specific verb ('inspect') with an enumerated set of facets (protocol identity, envelopes, lifecycle, families, recovery facts) and a scope qualifier ('without repair') that separates it from repair-oriented siblings. It falls short of 5 because the facet terms are domain jargon and no sibling (e.g. validate_workspace, inspect_family) is explicitly contrasted.

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?

'Without repair' implies use this when you only want to look, not fix, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when to pick this over validate_workspace or inspect_family, nor any precondition for calling it.

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