go_work

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description only says 'Manage Go workspaces', which is vague. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., file modifications), required permissions, or operation specifics beyond what the schema implies.

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 very concise (6 words) but lacks structure. It is front-loaded but too terse to be informative. A single sentence about purpose is efficient but does not explore sub-commands or variants.

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 tool managing Go workspaces with four parameters and multiple commands, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how commands fit together (e.g., init before use), nor does it cover return behavior or error scenarios. The simplicity of the description fails to match the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., command enum descriptions). The tool description adds a high-level categorization but does not explain parameter relationships or usage order. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already provides necessary details.

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 'Manage Go workspaces (go.work files)' clearly states the resource (Go workspaces) and implies management operations. It distinguishes from sibling tools like go_build or go_mod_tidy, as none directly manage go.work files. However, the verb 'manage' is broad and could be more specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical workflow, or exclusions. For a tool with multiple commands (init, use, sync, edit), usage context would be helpful.

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