Get Workspace Config Index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose concrete behavior: only workspace_name is accepted and other params fail with unexpected_keyword_argument. It omits auth/permission or rate-limit context, but the parameter-failure behavior is a valuable, non-obvious disclosure and the output schema covers return format.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then constraints, then alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, though the SLX-routing sentence is somewhat tangential and the NOTE repeats the workspace_chat preference already implied earlier.

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 single-param tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, accepted/rejected parameters, and sibling routing comprehensively. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and return values are documented by the output schema.

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% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by enumerating the arguments that are rejected (resource_path, slx_name, filter) and the resulting error, going beyond the raw schema. This proactively prevents common misuse.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get the workspace configuration index') and clarifies the payload is structured JSON covering configured resources, SLXs, and their relationships. It clearly distinguishes itself from workspace_chat by scoping its use to programmatic processing of the raw index.

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 names the preferred alternative ('prefer workspace_chat') and states the precise condition that selects this tool instead ('only when you need the raw configuration index for programmatic processing'). It also routes to commit_slx/deploy_registry_codebundle and search_workspace for adjacent needs.

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