validate_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: the validation is deterministic and it does not touch host/runtime state or perform repairs (implying a non-mutating, sandboxed read). It omits what happens on failure, whether it raises errors or returns findings, and whether it requires a prior init.

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 the action first and the constraints second; every clause carries information. Mild jargon ('Core validators', 'canonical workspace facts') costs a little immediate comprehension but no words are wasted.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it validates and what it refuses to do, but leaves the agent guessing about the result shape (pass/fail? list of violations?) and about prerequisites. Adequate but with a real gap in how to interpret the outcome.

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 sentence correctly implies the workspace is identified implicitly by context rather than by arguments.

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 specific verb ('validate') and resource ('canonical workspace facts') plus the mechanism ('Core validators'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like init_workspace or inspect_workspace. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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?

'Never repair or consult host/runtime state' provides useful exclusionary guidance about what this tool is not for, implying it should be used for static canonical-fact checking. However, it never says when to prefer it over inspect_workspace or what precondition (e.g., after init_workspace) makes it appropriate.

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