workspace_get_context

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. "Read" implies a non-mutating operation, but the description says nothing about what happens when no context has been set (error vs empty), what the object contains, its size, or whether it is scoped per workspace/agent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb front-loaded and no padding or filler. It is efficient, though the brevity shades into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the only channel for telling an agent what comes back — and it does not. An agent cannot tell the shape of the returned context, whether it can be empty, or how it differs from sibling read tools like workspace_get_capsule.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The one thing worth noting — that the target context is identified implicitly by session rather than by an id argument — is left unstated, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

"Read the shared context object" gives a verb (Read) and a resource (shared context object), so the basic operation is inferable. However, the resource is never characterized — the sibling list contains workspace_get_capsule, workspace_board, and workspace_get_file, and nothing in the description tells an agent what distinguishes a "context object" from a capsule, a board, or a file. The name/title already conveys as much as the sentence does.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of the natural pairing with workspace_put_context, no statement of when the context object exists versus when it is empty, and no routing against workspace_get_capsule or workspace_board. The agent must guess from the name alone.

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