validate_workspace

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the optional hashing behavior but does not specify what payloads are hashed or any performance implications. No contradiction with 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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no fluff. However, its terseness sacrifices useful detail, making it less effective than a slightly expanded version.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core action adequately. However, it lacks context on when to use it in the workspace workflow, what 'full' mode specifically entails, and what kind of validation is performed beyond the vague 'manifests and schemas'.

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 only parameter 'mode' has enum values but the description does not explain them. The phrase 'optionally hash every payload' hints that 'full' mode may trigger hashing, but it is not explicitly connected. With 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient compensation.

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 ('validate') with clear resources ('manifests and schemas') and adds an optional action ('hash every payload'). It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like workspace_status, though the resource scope makes it unique.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring an initialized workspace, or when to choose 'standard' versus 'full' mode. The statement is purely descriptive, not prescriptive.

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