workspace_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds a 'specific workspace' scope but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as returned fields, error behavior, or permissions. This is acceptable for a simple read operation but adds minimal value 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. It communicates the action, resource type, and scope efficiently.

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 one-parameter, read-only getter, this is mostly complete. The schema covers the only parameter and the annotations establish safety. However, since there is no output schema, saying 'details' is somewhat vague about what the agent can expect in the response.

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 fully documents the sole parameter workspaceId with the description 'The workspace ID', so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 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 ('Get') and a clear resource scope ('a specific workspace'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like workspace_list (which enumerates workspaces) and workspace_list_items (which lists items inside a workspace). It does not specify what 'details' includes, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workspace_list or workspace_list_items. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, so the agent must infer the intended use from the tool name and sibling list.

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