list_workbenches

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, read-only lookup. The description adds useful non-safety behavior: it returns size keywords with metre equivalents and edit areas that are at least that large, and it explains how the result feeds later preview summaries. 'Read-only' is redundant, but the added context is substantive.

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 front-loaded with the list contents and then the downstream workflow. It is reasonably compact, though the trailing 'Read-only' repeats the annotations and the workflow sentence could be slightly tighter.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool with annotations and an output schema, this description covers what is returned, how the result is used, and the safety profile. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter detail because there are none to explain.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists workbench size keywords and the edit areas that fit each size. It is functionally unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling tool by name.

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?

It gives a concrete workflow: ask the player which bench they will build at, then set that value as `bench` in the spec so preview summaries can report fit. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is clear.

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