Get a workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context about the 'visibility' field, explaining its possible values, access implications, and plan restrictions. This enriches the behavioral understanding beyond the bare annotations.

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 core purpose is stated in a single sentence, but the description then expands into a lengthy, detailed explanation of the visibility field with sub-bullets and multiple links. While informative, this makes the description longer than necessary for a simple GET tool and could have been condensed without losing essential information.

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?

The tool is a straightforward GET with two parameters and no output schema. The description explains one field (visibility) but does not provide an overview of other typical workspace properties returned. Given the simplicity and annotation coverage, the description is adequate but could have briefly summarized the general response structure to be more complete.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema are clear (workspaceId and include). The tool description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters; it only discusses the visibility field in the response. With full schema coverage, a baseline score 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 states 'Gets information about a workspace' with a clear verb and resource, which is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like getWorkspaces (which lists multiple workspaces), relying on the singular/plural name difference. The main body focuses on the visibility field, which is additional but not primary purpose elaboration.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to call getWorkspace instead of getWorkspaces, nor does it describe any prerequisites or context for use. The description is purely about the visibility field semantics, not about usage scenarios.

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