telys_workspace_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the null-workspace behavior, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. It does not mention potential performance or network dependencies, but for a simple config report, the added null handling is sufficient. No contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and exact output fields. The usage guidance and null-handling note are integrated without fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies what the agent will receive (path, repo_id, collection name, file count, cache persistence) and how to interpret the null case. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description reiterates 'Takes no arguments,' which is redundant but harmless. Baseline 4 applies because there are no parameters to document.

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 ('Report') and a clear resource (the server's configured workspace), and enumerates exactly what is reported (path, repo_id, collection name, file count, cache persistence). It clearly distinguishes this as an informational tool, different from the search, mutation, and collection management siblings.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Use to verify which repo telys_repo_search will index before calling it.' It also clarifies the null workspace case ('that is a report, not an error'), which guides the agent on interpreting results. No alternative is needed since this is a unique read-only inspection tool.

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