prufa_get_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns tier, usage/credits, trial state, and upsell blocks, and even details what gets gated when the trial ends. However, it does not mention authentication needs or side effects, though as a read-only 'get' tool, no destructive behavior is expected.

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 sentences, front-loaded with 'Get the current workspace', and no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value by listing what is included and a special behavior (upsell block).

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description provides sufficient detail about the tool's return values (tier, usage/credits, trial state, upsell block) to enable correct use. There are no parameters to explain, and the description fully compensates for missing structured documentation.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description adds all meaning beyond the schema. It explains the output content in detail. Per calibration, with 0 parameters and high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description's thoroughness warrants a 4.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'workspace', and lists specific aspects returned (tier, usage/credits, trial state, upsell block). It effectively distinguishes this from siblings like prufa_get_usage (which likely focuses on usage details) and prufa_billing_portal.

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 for fetching workspace status, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any when-not guidance. Sibling tools exist (e.g., prufa_get_usage, prufa_upgrade_plan) but no comparisons are made.

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