verify_workspace_handle

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 indicates this is a verification operation (likely read-only) but does not disclose the return format (e.g., boolean), potential error conditions (e.g., invalid or foreign handle), or any side effects. While the intent is clear, key behavioral details are missing.

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?

A single, concise sentence that states the core action and the verification criteria. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool and no output schema, the description is minimal but leaves important gaps: it does not specify the return value (true/false or error), how to handle invalid handles, or the relationship with create_workspace_handle. An agent could call it but would not know what to expect back.

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 schema has one string parameter named 'handle' with no description. The tool description repeats the term without explaining what a handle is, its format, or how it relates to creation. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the parameter's meaning underspecified.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('a handle') and clearly states the scope: it verifies that the handle was minted by this server and hasn't been tampered with. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_workspace_handle (which mints) and list_contracts/convert_units (unrelated).

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 the tool is used to verify a handle's authenticity, but it does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., before relying on a handle) or mention alternatives like create_workspace_handle as the source of valid handles. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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