Workspace Router

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

Annotations cover the read-only/non-destructive profile, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context: selection is scoped to this MCP session, other chats can select different projects through the same endpoint, and `discover`/`open` have a specific sequencing role relative to Git and Pi/Codex.

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 with no filler: the core purpose is front-loaded, the conditional discover-then-open workflow follows immediately, and the session-scoping caveat closes with important concurrency context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 router with annotations covering safety and a schema covering most parameter semantics, the description gives enough to act correctly for the main Git/Pi/Codex workflow. The main gap is that `list`, `use`, and `current` are not described and no output shape is given, though their names and schema fields provide partial context.

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 descriptions already cover most parameters, but the description adds meaning by tying `root` to a 'requested directory' and `discover` to the Git-repository condition. It also frames `max_depth` and `max_results` as repository-discovery settings, which helps select sensible values even though the schema already documents them.

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 states a specific verb ('Route this chat to an allowed project') and immediately distinguishes its workspace-routing role from the sibling file and execution tools. It also clarifies the core discover-vs-open distinction, making the tool's purpose unambiguous even before opening the schema.

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 gives explicit, actionable guidance: use `discover` when a requested directory is not a Git repository, then `open` the discovered repo before Git operations or starting Pi/Codex pools. It does not, however, explain when to use the other actions (`list`, `use`, `current`) or name exclusions for those cases.

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