Get workspace status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds value by enumerating the specific data fields returned (live URL, deployment/domain status, plan day, in-flight summary), which is useful behavioral context beyond 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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with 'Current state of your business' and effectively enumerates the key content. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main categories of returned information well. It could potentially add more detail about what terms like 'plan day' or 'in flight' mean, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple status getter.

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 adds no parameter semantics. According to the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline of 4; the description correctly does not attempt to describe nonexistent parameters.

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 specifies what the tool returns: current workspace status including live URL, deployment/domain status, plan day, and in-flight summary. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on tasks or documents, even though the description is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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 using this tool to check workspace status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. With zero parameters and a unique purpose, usage is fairly obvious, but no explicit guidance is given.

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