emacs_workspace_switch

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and selection method; it does not explain the precedence when both name and index are provided, what happens on invalid input, or what observable effect occurs after switching. There is no contradiction with annotations because none exist, but the behavioral detail is minimal.

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 words. It conveys the essential action and parameter types efficiently, which is appropriate for a simple tool.

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 simple switch operation with two fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. However, it omits behavior for ambiguous input (both name and index), invalid workspace references, and success signaling, which an agent would benefit from knowing. No return-value explanation is required, but error and precedence conditions are unaddressed.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters with descriptions, including that index is 0-based, so schema coverage is 100%. The description's 'by name or index' adds little beyond what the schema provides, and no additional semantics such as precedence or error behavior are introduced. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Switch to' with a clear resource, 'workspace/tab', and states the two selection methods, 'by name or index'. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like emacs_workspace_list, emacs_workspace_create, and emacs_workspace_delete, though it does not explicitly differentiate from emacs_project_switch.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that emacs_workspace_list could be used to discover workspace names before switching, nor does it contrast with emacs_project_switch for project-level switching. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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