workspace

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which the description reinforces with read actions (info and search). The description adds that 'info' returns workspace name, plan, and bot user, and 'search' finds pages/databases shared with the 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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured as a bullet list. The content is efficient with no wasted words, though the format could be slightly cleaner.

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 two actions and five parameters, the description adequately covers the main functionality and important parameters. The output schema likely provides return details. However, pagination for search results is not mentioned, which is a minor gap.

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 description explains the 'action' parameter's values and associated optional parameters (query, filter, sort, limit) in context. It clarifies the filter.object enum values. With 60% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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 provides workspace info and search, with two specific actions 'info' and 'search'. The verb usage is specific. Sibling tools like blocks, comments, etc. are distinct domains, so no confusion.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists actions but does not explain the choice between 'info' and 'search' or when to use other tools. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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