get_workspace

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the read-only nature. The description adds no extra side-effect or permission context, but since the annotations exist, the bar is lower and no contradiction occurs.

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 short sentences with no redundancy. It packs the resource, purpose, and parameter guidance efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple read-only tool with a single parameter, the description fully covers what the tool does, what data it returns (name, seats, subscription, hub profiles), and how to populate the required parameter. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema provides only a title and type for workspace_id with no description. However, the description compensates by explaining where to obtain valid IDs (from list_workspaces()), giving meaningful context to the parameter that would otherwise be purely nominal.

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 'Get' and the resource 'workspace', and enumerates specific details (name, seats, subscription, hub profiles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workspaces (which lists workspaces) and get_workspace_hub_profiles (which focuses only on hub profiles).

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 provides a direct usage hint for the workspace_id parameter by stating 'get available IDs from list_workspaces()', implying this tool is for fetching full details of a single workspace after obtaining its ID. It does not explicitly contrast with other siblings, but the 'full details' phrasing and ID sourcing guidance give sufficient directional cues.

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