Discover workspace APIs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context: selectedApi omits full file content unless includeContent=true, and lists forbidden execution pathways. It stops short of describing return format or error behavior, but the added context is meaningful.

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?

Four dense sentences with no wasted words. The use case is front-loaded, alternatives are named, the behavioral caveat is stated, and the prohibition is isolated at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only discovery tool, the description covers when to call it, which siblings to prefer, and a key output caveat. The main gap is that the return shape beyond selectedApi is not described, and there is no output schema to compensate, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor omission.

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, but the description adds real value by explaining that selectedApi's content inclusion depends on includeContent. It also frames apiPath and workspaceRoot in the workflow context, helping the agent understand when each is relevant.

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 states a specific purpose: listing workspace APIs or inspecting one before scaffolding a test. It also differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly preferring api_card for a single API and scaffold_test for new tests.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance and names the preferred alternative for each adjacent case. The guardrail against using testlight, npx, npm, shell, or node dist/mcp/server.js adds concrete boundary information.

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