get_workspace_chat_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that 'Response includes metadata only (id, name, scope); full rule/command content is not included,' which is a key behavioral trait. It also indicates 'resolved' meaning the rules/commands are computed for the workspace. No contradictions or misleading statements.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences and a statement about metadata. Every sentence adds value, starting with the core purpose, then the context (same as assistant sees), and a critical caveat about metadata. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, scope, and return content limitation. It might lack details on prerequisites (e.g., workspace existence) or error conditions, but the output schema likely handles return structure. Overall sufficient for an agent.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no further meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already offers. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving resolved chat rules and commands for a workspace. It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'resolved chat rules and commands', and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_chat_command and get_chat_rule by indicating it returns a list with resolved configurations for the workspace and optional persona.

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 clear context: 'These are the same rules and commands the workspace chat assistant sees.' This guides when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_chat_command for individual rules, which would improve differentiation.

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