workspace_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond those: the data comes straight from Google's discovery service, and it is meant to inform calls to workspace_raw rather than being executed itself.

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 short sentences front-load the core value proposition and then give concrete usage direction. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter introspection tool with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description is sufficient: it states what is returned and how to use it before workspace_raw. A small gap is that it doesn't describe the response structure, but the discovery-service framing covers most of what an agent needs.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the 'method' parameter with dotted examples. The description adds context about the parameter's purpose, but it does not add new semantic detail beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a schema/metadata lookup: it returns 'the exact parameters and request body a method expects' from Google's discovery service. It distinguishes itself from sibling workspace_raw by positioning itself as the read-before-execute step, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'Read this before workspace_raw rather than guessing field names.' This names the relevant sibling and gives clear temporal ordering, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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