workspace

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) already indicate safe read operations. The description adds behavioral context (what info returns, what search finds) without contradicting annotations. No annotation contradiction found.

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 (two paragraphs) with a clear structure: a summary line followed by an action list. However, the bullet format could be slightly cleaner for rapid scanning.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description adequately covers the two actions and their parameters. It lacks return value details but is sufficient for a workspace-level tool with annotations.

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 adds meaning beyond the input schema by specifying which parameters are required for each action (e.g., query for search) and clarifying filter/sort options. With 60% schema coverage, this compensates well for gaps.

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 defines two distinct actions (info and search) with specific resources (workspace name/plan/bot user, pages/databases). It effectively communicates the tool's scope and differentiates 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 implies usage context through action descriptions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., using pages tool for page-specific operations). No exclusion or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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