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 mentions three modes but fails to explain behavioral differences between metadata (file info), snapshot (directory tree), and explore (LLM-powered). It omits whether operations are read-only, performance characteristics, or output format expectations for each mode.

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 with zero waste: first defines the tool's identity, second provides usage context. Every word earns its place. Front-loaded with the key concept (workspace structure discovery) immediately.

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 7 parameters with mode-specific applicability (question/maxEntries only for explore; maxDepth/extensions only for snapshot) and zero annotations/output schema, the description inadequately guides mode selection. The multi-modal complexity warrants explanation of which parameters apply to which modes and how outputs differ, which is absent here.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear mode-specific documentation (e.g., 'Maximum directory depth for snapshot'). The description mentions the three modes which reinforces the enum, but adds no syntax guidance, parameter relationships, or examples beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource (workspace) and core actions (metadata/snapshot/explore) aligning with the enum values. It distinguishes from siblings via 'before deeper tools,' signaling this is preliminary/structural vs. analytical tools like analyze_file. However, 'helper' is vague and doesn't fully convey the three distinct behavioral modes.

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 phrase 'Use for quick structure discovery before deeper tools' provides implied sequencing (when to use), suggesting this precedes analysis-heavy siblings. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance and doesn't name specific alternative tools from the sibling list for when users need deeper analysis.

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