Check the current status of a Conversation Branch workspace by rebuilding the STATE.md view and updating its timestamp without altering branch data, version numbers, or HEAD.
查看工作区状态（会就地重建 STATE.md 视图与 updated 时间戳，不改分支数据、版本号与 HEAD）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | Yes | Conversation Branch 工作区根目录 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| head | Yes | ||
| root | Yes | ||
| updated | No | ||
| branches | Yes | ||
| main_version | Yes | ||
| schema_version | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly discloses a non-obvious side effect: despite being a 'view' operation, it rebuilds STATE.md and updates the timestamp in place, while explicitly stating it does not change branch data, version, or HEAD. This provides valuable behavioral transparency beyond the simple boolean 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 description is a single, well-structured sentence with the primary action front-loaded and important side-effects placed in parentheses. Every part adds meaningful information with no redundancy.
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 tool with one fully documented parametercars and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral details needed for correct invocation. It lacks sibling differentiation, but that is not necessary for completeness in this case.
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 already fully documents the only parameter 'root' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 specific action and object: '查看工作区状态' (view workspace status). It adds concrete detail about rebuilding STATE.md and not changing branch data, which clarifies the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cb_check.
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 intended use is implied by the description: the agent should use this tool to view workspace status. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.