get_workspace_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Check' indicates a read-only operation, and listing the statuses provides additional behavioral context about what the tool returns. However, it does not disclose error behavior or what happens with invalid workspace IDs.

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 efficient sentence with a clear verb and supporting detail. No filler or redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the tool's action and the list of possible statuses, which effectively describes the expected return values. It is adequate for an AI agent to select and invoke this tool 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 schema has one parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description provides context by specifying it applies to a 'Conductor workspace', making workspaceId's purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly describe the parameter's format or domain beyond being a string.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'lifecycle status of a Conductor workspace'. The parenthetical list of possible statuses further clarifies the scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_session_status.

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 usage when you need to know workspace lifecycle status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. The context is clear, but lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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