validate_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states this is a reporting (read-only) operation and enumerates what will be reported, giving a clear picture of side-effect-free behavior. It does not describe error handling or edge cases (e.g., missing workspace), but the core behavior is transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and lists specific outputs. Every word adds meaningful information, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (zero parameters), has a provided output schema, and the description covers the key aspects of what the report includes. Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values further, making it complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. The description adds value by explaining the scope of the report, which is more than baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 specifies the verb 'Report' and the resource 'workspace configuration and health', listing concrete items (root directory, existence/writability, size limits, allowed extensions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_path, which targets path validation rather than entire workspace health.

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 implies use for checking workspace health but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_path, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no mention of when this should be preferred or avoided.

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