get_workspace_state

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely valuable negative scope: editor reachability is only a local TCP listener check and does not start services, load models, verify an open project, or claim inference capacity — exactly the caveats an agent needs to avoid over-trusting the result.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the capability statement followed by the caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the caveat paragraph could be tightened into a single clause without loss.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the behavioral caveats are well covered. The remaining gap is the two undocumented parameters — particularly 'probe_runtime,' whose cost or side effect (performing a live probe) is never stated, which matters for an agent deciding whether to enable it.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does not: neither 'recent_jobs' (a bounded integer with a max of 20) nor 'probe_runtime' (a boolean that presumably triggers the TCP probe mentioned in prose) is named or explained. The prose hints at the concepts but leaves the actual parameters and their effects undocumented.

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 ('Read') and enumerates the resources returned: worker/memory/editor status, character, saved Unreal target, and recent job history. This is far more informative than the tool name alone. However, it does not differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as health_check, get_unreal_target, or get_character_profile, so an agent must infer that this is an aggregate view.

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 aggregate framing implies 'use this for a workspace overview,' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives like health_check or get_unreal_target. The second paragraph describes limits on what the tool verifies, which is useful but is exclusion-of-scope rather than tool selection guidance.

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