Manage i3 Workspace

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

The description discloses that the operation is reversible, adding behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive, and the description aligns with that.

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 concise (two sentences) yet comprehensive. It front-loads the core actions, then adds details about reversibility and parameter dependencies, followed by sibling tool references. No wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple actions with parameter dependencies) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers all necessary behavioral and usage aspects without gaps.

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?

Even with 100% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining how the action parameter determines which other parameters are required. This is not evident from the schema alone.

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: acting on workspaces with specific actions (switch, move_container_to, rename, navigate). It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like move_window and list_workspaces.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each action and which parameters are required. It also suggests alternatives for other tasks (e.g., move_window for moving a single window, list_workspaces for listing).

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