workspace

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it details what each action returns (e.g., workspace name, plan, bot user for 'info'; pages/databases for 'search') and lists optional parameters. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the scope of results (pages/databases shared with integration). No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief summary followed by bullet-like actions with parameters clearly listed. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose. No unnecessary text.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of both actions and their key parameters. It explains what each action returns, which helps an agent without an output schema. However, it lacks details on sort behavior and filtering nuance, leaving some minor gaps. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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 coverage is 60%, with some missing descriptions (e.g., sort properties). The description adds meaning by explaining the 'search' action's optional params and the 'info' action's output fields. However, it does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions, especially for 'sort' and 'filter'. The baseline is 3 due to partial coverage, and the description adds some value but not enough to raise the score.

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: 'Search workspace and get workspace info.' It lists two specific actions (info and search) with their outputs, making it easy for an agent to understand what this tool does. The tool name 'workspace' is general, but the description provides a specific verb and resource, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'pages' or 'databases'.

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 guidance on when to use each action: 'info' returns workspace details, 'search' finds pages/databases shared with the integration. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide. The description implies this tool is for workspace-level operations, which distinguishes it from siblings focused on specific resources.

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