get_workspace_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the return format (dictionary with current directory and ingest flag) but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or state dependencies. The description adds basic context but lacks depth for full transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then detail the return format. Every sentence is necessary and there is zero waste.

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?

Given no parameters and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the key return fields. However, it omits any potential error conditions or prerequisites. Despite this, for a simple info-retrieval tool, it provides sufficient 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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds significant value by explaining the return structure beyond the trivial input schema. It specifies that the output includes the current directory and whether it was set from an ingested API specification file, which is meaningful for the agent.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get information') and resource ('current workspace directory and file generation locations'). It directly addresses what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like 'debug_file_system' or 'generate_*' which have different scopes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or context where other tools might be more appropriate. Given the lack of usage recommendations, the score is low.

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