Create a workspace within a Herdr session, specifying working directory, label, and whether to move focus. Use it to organize panes and agents for remote control.
Create a workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Working directory. | |
| focus | No | Move user focus to the new workspace. | |
| label | No | Workspace label. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description is not the sole source of behavioral information. Still, it contributes nothing beyond that: no indication of what a workspace is, whether creation has side effects, or that all parameters are optional. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.
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 short sentence with no wasted words and the key verb front-loaded. That said, the brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined economy, so it earns only a middling score.
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?
This is a creation/mutation tool with no output schema and three optional parameters, yet the description explains nothing about what is created, what happens if cwd is omitted, or what the caller receives back. For a state-changing operation it leaves significant gaps.
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%, so cwd, focus, and label are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning such as defaults or interaction between parameters, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb and resource ('Create a workspace'), so the basic operation is unambiguous. However, it adds nothing beyond what the tool name herdr_workspace_create already conveys and offers no differentiation from siblings like herdr_workspaces or herdr_workspace_close. It is minimally viable rather than genuinely informative.
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 guidance on when to create a workspace versus using an existing one, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a valid cwd), and no reference to related tools. The agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.