maket_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly describes each action's behavior: focus opens a doc at a page, state summarizes current state, lock toggles and blocks mutations, fit_view zooms out, list_messages returns pending messages as JSON, ack_messages drops given ids. Minor gaps: does not explicitly state return format for focus/lock/fit_view.

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 fairly long but well-structured with a summary sentence followed by a bullet list. Every sentence serves a purpose, though some redundancy exists (e.g., each action's description could be tightened slightly). Overall efficient for the complexity.

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?

No output schema is provided, so description must cover return values. It does for list_messages (JSON) and state (summary), but less explicit for focus, lock, and fit_view (likely success signals). It also explains the cascade effect of lock. Comprehensive given the tool's complexity.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: explains action-specific parameter requirements (e.g., doc required for focus/state/lock), toggle behavior for locked, and that ids is for ack_messages. This extra context is helpful.

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 explicitly states the tool is for 'every session-level interaction with the live workspace' and enumerates six specific actions (focus, state, lock, fit_view, list_messages, ack_messages). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool maket_doc, which handles persistent CRUD.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'For persistent CRUD on documents... use maket_doc.' It also details parameter requirements per action, e.g., doc is required for focus/state/lock but not for list_messages.

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