workspace_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only and that it reports errors (when the workspace cannot be used). It also details what information is returned. This is adequate for a simple query tool, though it does not mention any potential side effects (there are none) or performance characteristics.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then enumerating the specific details returned. Every sentence adds value: main output, additional context (origin and error reason), and a clear read-only declaration. No waste.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns (workspace folder, state directories, output folder, origin, and failure reason). An agent can confidently call this tool and interpret the result without ambiguity. Nothing essential is missing.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist. This is appropriate and complete for a no-argument tool.

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 verb ('Report') and a precise resource (workspace folder, state directories, output folder, origin, and failure reason). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like set_workspace (which configures) and scan_workspace (which likely scans images). The purpose is unambiguous and scoped.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool: whenever an agent needs to inspect the workspace configuration or diagnose why the workspace is unusable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear from the sibling set and the read-only nature. No misleading guidance.

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