authorize_workspace

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the authorization is five-minute valid, one-time, read-only, and does not grant write or dangerous permissions. Annotations are all false and provide no details. This disclosure helps an agent understand the tool's side effects and limitations. No contradiction with annotations since the read-only refers to the granted permissions, not the tool's own operation.

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 concise two-sentence structure that front-loads the usage condition, then explains the action and constraints. Every word earns its place; there is zero fluff. It is highly efficient.

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 the tool has 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain each parameter and edge cases. It covers the core purpose and constraints, but omits details like what constitutes a valid workspace, task description, and the behavior on idempotency key reuse. It is adequate but not thorough for a tool with such sparse schema annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanations. However, it only hints at 'precise task' and 'idempotency key' without defining what each parameter means, their formats, or constraints. The 'permission' const is read-only, which aligns with the description, but the other three parameters lack explicit semantic detail. This is a significant gap.

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 ('签发', issue) and resource (workspace authorization), and clearly delineates the tool's function: issuing a temporary, one-time, read-only authorization for a precise task. It also gives the exact condition for invocation, distinguishing it from sibling run-management tools without needing to name them.

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?

It explicitly states when to call: only when the user explicitly requests in the current conversation to use that workspace. This is a strong conditional. However, it does not mention any alternative tools or when not to use it, but given the siblings are about runs, the context is sufficient. The explicit trigger condition warrants a 4.

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