wikijs_workspace_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Show', implying a read-only operation, but does not state whether this is safe/non-mutating, what kind of response is returned, or whether there are side effects. It provides minimal behavioral information.

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 entire description is one concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and clearly identifies the resource and scope. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless status tool, the description states the basic scope and outcome, but it does not clarify what 'workspace context' includes, what counts as a repository status, or how this differs from the sibling repository_status tool. No output schema exists, so a bit more context would help an agent call it confidently.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing meaningful to document. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description need not compensate for any missing parameter information.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Show workspace context with all repositories and their status'. It states a clear scope of workspace context across all repositories. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling wikijs_repository_status, which likely has a closely related purpose.

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 direct guidance about when to choose this tool over wikijs_repository_status, wikijs_get_context, or wikijs_detect_context. The description merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without exclusions or alternatives.

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