create_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that it creates directories and copies a CIF file, and it details what it does NOT create: 'simulation.input, force_field_mixing_rules.def, pseudo_atoms.def, and molecules/TraPPE/*.def' are left for Claude to write. It also discloses a security restriction: 'work_dir must resolve to a path inside the allowed workspace base, controlled by the RASPA_MCP_WORKSPACE_BASE environment variable.' This is substantial 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 well-organized and front-loaded. It begins with a clear one-sentence summary, then provides a concrete directory tree, followed by Args and Security sections. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant content. The formatting improves readability.

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?

This tool is a file-system operation with no output schema. The description is complete enough: it specifies the exact structure created, the source CIF copy, the parameter roles, and a critical security constraint. It also clarifies the boundary of what the tool does versus what the model must write, which is essential for the agent's workflow.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates thoroughly with an 'Args:' section that adds meaning beyond the bare schema. For example, it explains that framework_name is the name matching the CIF file (without extension), work_dir is an absolute path to the new simulation directory, and cif_source_path points to the existing CIF file. This is more informative than the schema's simple type/title fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a properly structured RASPA2 simulation workspace directory.' It then details the exact directory layout and the CIF copying action, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like preflight_workspace or the generate_* tools. The scope is unambiguous.

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 clear context: 'RASPA2 expects a specific directory layout. This tool creates it and copies the CIF file into the right location.' This implies it is the initial setup step for a simulation workspace. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use preflight_workspace to validate an existing workspace'), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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