get_workspace_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'finds' a workspace but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects: whether it returns a single match or multiple, what happens if no workspace matches the name, if the search is case-sensitive, or if it requires specific permissions. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of 'Find a workspace by its name' contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it optimally concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter with full schema coverage) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but omits critical context like return behavior, error handling, and differentiation from siblings. For a basic lookup tool, this is passable but leaves the agent to guess about operational details.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'name' clearly documented as 'Workspace name to search for'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't clarify format expectations, examples, or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 the action ('find') and resource ('workspace by its name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from generic 'get_workspace' by specifying the lookup mechanism, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other workspace-related tools like 'list_workspaces' or 'search_notes' that might also involve workspace identification.

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. With siblings like 'get_workspace' (likely by ID), 'list_workspaces', and 'search_notes', the description doesn't indicate whether this is for exact name matching, partial matching, or when name-based lookup is preferred over other methods. The agent must infer usage 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.