workspace.open

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the workspace is durable, has a main branch, an immutable initial revision, and that content is agent-authored and UNVERIFIED. These are important behavioral traits not present in the annotations, significantly enriching the agent's understanding.

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 extremely concise, containing only two sentences. The critical directive 'do not call capability.describe' is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core creation semantics, durability, and workspace structure. It does not mention the return value or error scenarios, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema. Overall, it is nearly complete for a workspace creation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It clarifies that 'problem' refers to the canonical problem, but it does not explain idempotency_key, name, or tags beyond their schema titles and constraints. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning.

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's purpose: 'Create a durable epistemic workspace with one canonical problem, a main branch, and an immutable initial revision.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling capability.describe by instructing 'do not call capability.describe.'

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 clear usage context: it is a direct tool and should not be invoked via capability.describe. It explains what the tool does, establishing when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly contrast with workspace.query or workspace.write, leaving some ambiguity about alternatives.

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