get_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states the tool returns current workspace info and plan ids, which implies a read-only, non-mutating operation. It does not explicitly guarantee no side effects, describe error behavior, or mention authentication requirements, but for a simple getter with no parameters the disclosed behavior is reasonably sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the result and the practical use case without filler. Every word adds value, and the parenthetical is a compact justification for why an agent would call this tool.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description provides the essential return topics ('workspace info and plan ids') and the intended interpretation ('what the key can reach'). It could be more explicit about exact fields returned, but the simplicity of the tool makes the high-level description adequate for selecting and invoking it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. The input schema is already complete with no properties. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter docs, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 clearly identifies the resource as the current workspace and adds specific return content (plan ids), so an agent knows it is a retrieval tool for workspace-level metadata. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieve', but the tool name and 'current workspace info' make the purpose unambiguous. The workspace scope also distinguishes it from sibling account/campaign tools, though no contrast is explicitly made.

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 parenthetical '(useful to see what the key can reach)' gives a clear use case: call this when you need to understand the API key's access scope. There are no sibling tools that provide workspace info, so alternatives are not needed. It does not list exclusions or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear for a zero-parameter utility.

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