Get Workspace Structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'Returns' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, or return values, which are essential for a tool that retrieves structural data in a graph-based system.

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 compensate. It mentions 'graph's workspace' but does not explain the 'graph_id' parameter beyond what the schema title ('Graph Id') provides. No details on format, sourcing, or constraints are added, failing to adequately clarify parameter meaning.

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 the verb ('Returns') and resource ('folder and file structure of a graph's workspace'), specifying it provides organizational understanding. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_graphs' (which lists graphs) or 'get_block' (which retrieves individual blocks), but could be more explicit about the distinction.

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 usage ('Use this to understand the organization of documents in a graph') for exploring workspace structure, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'list_graphs' for high-level overview or 'query_blocks' for detailed content. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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