Read workspace limits

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only/idempotent profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: null means no limit, CPU/memory usage reflects apps and databases sampled roughly every 10 seconds, and disk reflects database and volume storage. Those semantics materially change how an agent interprets the numbers and are unavailable anywhere else.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: the first covers when to call, the second covers the return shape and measurement semantics. Front-loaded and tightly scoped to what an agent needs before invoking.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so completely — every returned field is named and interpreted, including the null-means-unlimited convention and the freshness of usage data. Nothing needed for a correct call is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, workspaceId, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with a pointer to workspace_list. The description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — reads a workspace's limits and current usage — and enumerates the exact fields returned. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling workspace_limits_set (which writes) and from metrics_get (which returns runtime metrics).

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?

Gives two concrete invocation triggers: the user asking what a workspace may run at once, and a prior call failing with WORKSPACE_SANDBOX_LIMIT or WORKSPACE_USAGE_LIMIT. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming workspace_limits_set as the alternative for changing limits, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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