workspace_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds a meaningful extra behavioral detail: on first use, a missing workspace triggers a named recovery flow. It does not fully explain what WORKSPACE_NOT_FOUND recovery entails, but it provides context beyond the structured metadata.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and appends the only caveat. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrasing.

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 zero-argument status tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the core invocation and the key first-use edge case. The recovery procedure is referenced but not spelled out; the sibling initialize_workspace makes the likely next step inferable, though not explicit.

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 description coverage, so there are no input semantics for the description to clarify. The description introduces no confusion and the zero-parameter baseline applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('workspace status'), making the tool's core function immediately clear. The resource noun also distinguishes it from the sibling workload_configuration_status, even without an explicit comparison.

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 gives operational guidance for first use by referencing WORKSPACE_NOT_FOUND recovery, which implies this is the status-check entry point. However, it does not explicitly contrast with initialize_workspace, validate_workspace, or workload_configuration_status, leaving some usage decisions implicit.

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