asana_get_workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond noting the returned metadata fields; it doesn't discuss default workspace auto-detection or opt_fields behavior, but nothing contradicts the annotations.

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, focused sentence that names the resource and core output fields without any filler or redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded with the essential scoping information.

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 simple read-only metadata fetch with no output schema, the description covers the primary intent and return fields. Missing return format details are minor given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety and idempotency.

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 100%: both workspace and opt_fields are documented in the schema with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no further parameter explanation, so it relies on the schema, which is sufficient.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as workspace metadata, listing the exact fields returned (name, is_organization, email_domains). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project or get_portfolio.

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 description implies a straightforward read operation for workspace details but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It's adequate for a simple fetch tool, but lacks exclusion criteria or comparison to related tools.

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