get_workspace_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return type (text), the content of the response, and the effect of include_user_events=true. It also implies this is a safe, repeatable call ('start of every notebook turn'). However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention any failure/error behavior, so it doesn't fully cover all behavioral aspects.

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 not optimally structured. The first paragraph is largely about pairing (a different tool) and repeats 'at the start of each notebook turn' that also appears in the second paragraph. The core purpose is buried in the second paragraph, making it less front-loaded than ideal. It could be tightened without losing key context.

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 getter with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: what the return includes, when to call it, and how the parameter affects the response. It also points to sibling tools for related functionality. It does not describe an output format in detail, but given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient.

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 single parameter include_user_events is clearly explained: 'Pass include_user_events=true to also receive the digest of edits the user made since your last fetch.' This adds meaning beyond the bare boolean type in the schema, making the parameter's purpose and effect unambiguous.

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 tool returns 'the current workspace + notebook context as text' and specifies what that context includes (active notebook, cells, layout mode, chart configs, last-run statuses). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_recent_user_actions by noting that tool handles the user edit digest, but the purpose is slightly obscured by the pairing preamble at the beginning.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'call get_workspace_state at the start of each notebook turn'. It also provides an alternative by pointing to get_pairing_credentials if BRIDGE_NOT_PAIRED occurs, and directs user-event digest needs to get_recent_user_actions. This is excellent context for an agent deciding between tools.

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