Open Workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, signaling a non-mutating operation. The description adds return-value context (workspace_id, git status, skills) but no additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects beyond what annotations already cover. It neither contradicts annotations nor introduces new behavioral caveats.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Open') and followed by a concise list of return items. It is free of filler, repetition, or unnecessary details, making it immediately scannable and efficient.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate: it conveys the core purpose and return data. Parameter details are fully covered by the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. However, it omits any guidance on parameter interactions or defaults, which could be useful for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool. A slightly richer description could mention that omitting root uses the current directory and that several flags control tree and skill inclusion.

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?

All 8 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that. The description simply names the operation; the schema already explains each parameter's purpose, defaults, and constraints. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full semantic load.

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 states a specific verb ('Open') and a precise resource ('a local project directory as a CodexPro workspace'), and lists the exact return content (workspace_id, git status, AGENTS.md, skills, compact file tree). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling open_current_workspace, which targets the current directory rather than a specified path.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling open_current_workspace suggests a complementary use case, the description provides no direct comparison, conditions, or when-not-to-use guidance. The intent is only implied by the name and schema.

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