knowledge_workspace_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Inspect' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires permissions, what data it returns, or if it has side effects. The description is too vague to inform the agent adequately.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though its brevity contributes to under-specification rather than clarity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. For a tool with one parameter and siblings that suggest complex knowledge management, it lacks details on behavior, return values, and differentiation, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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%, with one parameter 'workspace' undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'workspace' represents (e.g., an ID, name, or path) or its format. It does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Inspect a workspace' restates the tool name 'knowledge_workspace_status' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'inspect' and resource 'workspace' but lacks detail on what inspection entails or what distinguishes it from siblings like 'knowledge_list_workspaces' or 'knowledge_read'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'knowledge_list_workspaces' (likely listing workspaces) and 'knowledge_read' (likely reading content), the description offers no context on usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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