get_workspace_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), explains caching behavior ('Bypass cache' via force_reload), and details output variations based on scope. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, error conditions, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by specific usage instructions. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information about defaults, scope options, and parameter requirements without any redundant or vague language.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and some behavioral aspects. The main gap is lack of information about return values/output format, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. However, it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the semantic meaning of scope options beyond the schema's enum values: it clarifies what 'summary', 'full', 'object', and 'list' actually retrieve in practice (e.g., 'key fields only', 'all fields'), providing context that enhances parameter understanding beyond the structured schema.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('Attio workspace schema'), specifying what data is retrieved. It distinguishes from sibling tools (which focus on specific entities like companies/people) by targeting schema metadata rather than entity data, making its purpose specific and differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use different scope values: 'summary' for key fields, 'full' for all fields, and 'object'/'list' for specific items with all fields. It clearly explains the default behavior and conditions for using optional parameters (e.g., object_slug required for scope='object'), offering complete usage context.

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