get_workspace

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful context that the workspace is 'legacy' and that up to 50 sys_aw_list configurations are returned, but it does not explain truncation/pagination behavior or error handling.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrasing. Every part contributes to identifying the tool's scope and return contents.

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 single-parameter read operation with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it states the main return content and the 50-item cap. Only edge-case behavior around truncation or missing sys_id is left 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 description coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter is documented as 'Workspace sys_id'. The description does not add format, constraints, or lookup behavior beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: getting a legacy Agent Workspace definition plus up to 50 sys_aw_list configurations. It is clear what is retrieved, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as list_workspaces or create_workspace.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_workspaces. The retrieval-by-sys_id usage is implied by the verb and parameter, but no exclusions or selection criteria are given.

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