Check close-readiness of a workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class (board_or_agent), which are useful but expected. It does not disclose error handling or edge cases. With good annotations, the description provides minimal additional value.

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 extremely concise: 3 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes relevant technical details. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description fails to explain the input parameter 'id' and does not provide context on when to use this tool. For a simple one-parameter tool, the description should cover parameter semantics and usage context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the 'id' parameter. However, it only references the path template without clarifying that 'id' is the workspace ID. The agent is left guessing what value to provide. This is a critical gap.

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 'Check close-readiness of a workspace', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (no other close-readiness tool), but does not explain what close-readiness means, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other workspace-related tools like pc_get_execution_workspaces_by_id or pc_patch_execution_workspaces_by_id. The description lacks prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or alternative suggestions.

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