workspace_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does well: it explicitly states 'Read-only' and discloses that it reports failure reasons ('when it cannot be used, why'), covering error behavior. The scope of the report is fully enumerated. It could add detail on return format or whether it errors when no workspace exists, but for a simple info tool this is strong.

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?

Two sentences, roughly 50 words, with the primary purpose front-loaded and every clause adding distinct information: report content, provenance, failure reporting, and the read-only flag. There is no wasted or redundant wording.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it enumerates every category of reported information (folder paths, state dirs, output folder, origin, failure reason). For a zero-parameter informational tool, this is complete; the only minor gap is not specifying the exact return format or data structure.

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 takes zero parameters (empty input schema, 100% coverage trivially), so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed or possible.

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 ('Report') and enumerates precisely what is reported: the workspace folder, state directories (scratch, bridge, logs), the output folder, the folder's origin, and failure reasons. This level of specificity makes the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the closely named sibling scan_workspace, but the enumerated content makes confusion unlikely.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs workspace paths or needs to check workspace usability. However, the description never says 'use this when...' or points to an alternative (e.g., scan_workspace) for other needs. The mention of set_workspace is about provenance, not selection guidance.

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