Get workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds value by naming the return payload ('workspace and critique_log') and the failure mode ('an error if the workspace is missing'), which no annotation or output schema conveys. It stops short of describing size/pagination behavior of the critique log.

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 dense sentences: what it reads, when to use it versus siblings, how to address the resource, what comes back. The core purpose is front-loaded and nothing is repeated verbatim from the annotations.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the missing pieces: return shape, error case, and the required-one-of addressing rule. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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% and both parameters are documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one thing the schema does not: that neither parameter is strictly required but one of them must be supplied ('Supply id or its workspace_id alias'), plus the precedence rule, which resolves the ambiguity of a zero-required-parameter schema.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Read one saved video-planning workspace and its full critique log.' The word 'one' plus 'critique log' distinguishes it from the sibling list_workspaces (plural, list-only) without needing to open either schema.

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?

Explicit sequencing ('Use after list_workspaces') and explicit routing to alternatives with their purposes: assemble_workspace for selecting new examples, critique_against_corpus for appending findings. It also carves out the boundary — this tool only reads, the other two mutate the workspace.

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