get_workspace_config_index

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool accepts only one parameter and returns structured JSON. It also warns about unexpected keyword arguments. Could mention authorization or performance, but overall sufficient for a simple read operation.

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?

Three concise paragraphs: purpose, parameter constraints, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the structure front-loads key information. No superfluous content.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, read-only, output schema present), the description covers all relevant aspects: what it does, what it returns, parameter restrictions, and when to use alternatives. The presence of an output schema means return value detail is not needed.

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% (workspace_name described). The description adds value by explicitly listing which parameters are not accepted (resource_path, slx_name, filter) and the resulting error, going beyond schema 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the workspace configuration index as structured JSON, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like workspace_chat by noting when each is appropriate.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use (programmatic processing) and when to prefer alternatives (workspace_chat for contextual questions). Also clarifies that only workspace_name is accepted and other parameters will fail.

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