get_workspace_hierarchy

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool 'gets' the hierarchy, implying a read operation, but does not mention potential large response sizes, rate limits, or any side effects. Minimal transparency.

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 concise sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage instruction is appended without redundancy. Every sentence adds value. Minor formatting oddities do not detract.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return format or structure. It does not describe what the hierarchy looks like, whether it's paginated, or if it includes IDs. Adequate but missing return value expectations.

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 and 100% schema documentation coverage (vacuously). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since none exist.

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 tool retrieves the complete hierarchy of spaces, folders, and lists. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that create or manage individual items.

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 provides an explicit precondition: check chat history for names/IDs first, and use this tool as a fallback. This guides the agent on when to invoke it, though it doesn't compare to specific sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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