workspace_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'already known to MangoMe' implying a cache/state check but does not disclose whether the call triggers side effects (refresh parameter suggests possible mutation) or what 'attachment state' means. The description is too brief to inform the agent about behavior like failure modes or caching semantics.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the main functionality. It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly longer to add usage context without bloat.

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?

The tool has an output schema, which may describe the return value, but the description omits key operational details: when to call, what 'attachment' refers to, prerequisites, and side effects of the refresh parameter. Complexity is moderate, but the empty annotations and low schema coverage mean the description should be more substantive.

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%, and the description does not explain what the 'refresh' or 'workspace_root' parameters do. The description only mentions the output, not inputs. Since the schema provides parameter names but no explanatory descriptions, the description must compensate and fails to do so.

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 the tool returns 'attachment state plus any durable workspace project already known to MangoMe', which is a specific resource and outcome. However, the meaning of 'attachment state' and 'durable workspace project' is unclear without deeper domain knowledge, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'status' or 'project_overview'.

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 versus alternatives. The description only says what it returns, not when an agent should invoke it. Given the large sibling set, an explicit use-case statement (e.g., 'call this to check current workspace status before starting work') is missing.

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