get_current_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The description clarifies a behavioral detail: that the MCP client supplies the path from its Roots and that ContextForge doesn't read Roots directly in v0. This adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the path has no bound repo or component (e.g., error vs null result) or any other behavioral traits.

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?

A single, focused sentence in the description plus detailed parameter documentation in the schema. Zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose. This is appropriately concise.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are handled structurally. The tool is a simple single-parameter resolution operation. The description covers the core purpose and even adds an implementation detail (Roots handling in v0). However, it doesn't address edge cases like unbound paths, which an agent might benefit from knowing, and given no annotations, the safety profile (read-only vs mutating) is unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents the single path parameter fully, including the note that the MCP client supplies it from Roots. The description adds the meaning that path resolves to a repo/component binding, which marginally extends the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 action (resolve a workspace path) and resource (its bound repo and parent component). It's clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like resolve_ref or bind_workspace/unbind_workspace, though its verb and resource are distinct enough.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention when you'd need to resolve a workspace path, or contrast with resolve_ref, or explain why one would use this rather than looking up a repo directly. The context is implied but not stated.

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