workspace_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so "Read-only" in the description is largely redundant. What it does add is the payload shape (transient --root vs registered root, plus the server package version for build provenance), which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations. It does not say how an unknown workspace name is handled.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope in the first sentence, followed by return contents and an exclusion. The "Read-only" line duplicates the annotation, and the line breaks inflate it slightly, but no sentence is padding.

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 one-parameter, non-mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and scope exclusions. The only real omission is error behavior for an invalid workspace name, which is minor given the simplicity.

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 0% for the single `workspace` parameter, so the description must carry the meaning. "One registered workspace by name" establishes that the value is a name of a registered workspace and that the null default means the current selection. It omits the failure behavior for an unregistered name.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Describe the selected workspace, or one registered workspace by name") and enumerates exactly what is reported: name, identifier, registered root, transient --root status, and server version. This clearly separates it from the sibling workspace_list, which enumerates workspaces rather than describing one.

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 two calling modes are implied precisely: omit the argument to describe the current selection, supply a name to describe a specific registration. It also adds an exclusion ("does not create, select or modify a workspace"), which steers an agent away from treating this as a selection tool. It stops short of naming workspace_list as the alternative for enumeration.

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