workspace_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is well covered. The description adds value by clarifying the exact scope of what is returned and explicitly stating that source content is not included, which is a meaningful behavioral boundary 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler and every part adds information. The explicit negative statement is compact and useful.

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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It clearly states the two pieces of information returned and what is excluded, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke this simple informational tool.

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 does not need to document parameter behavior. The schema already covers this completely, and the description correctly focuses on the purpose rather than inventing unnecessary parameter details.

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 states a specific verb ('return') and resource ('bound workspace policy and Git identity'), and it explicitly excludes source content. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_files and read_file_range, which deal with source content.

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 gives a clear context: use it when you need workspace policy or Git identity information. The exclusion 'does not return source content' is useful guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not scenarios.

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