Describe the workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral caveat beyond them: "part full is everything, too big for most clients," which warns about output volume and steers toward narrower queries.

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?

Front-loaded with the actionable instruction and compact overall, with every clause carrying usage information. The telegraphic colon-and-semicolon fragments make it slightly harder to parse than plain prose, which keeps it below top marks.

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?

With no output schema and only two optional params, the description carries the return-value burden and largely succeeds: it enumerates index contents, per-name results, and per-part section results. It does not quantify the index size or note pagination, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with a documented enum, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by giving concrete semantics and examples ("name meter is the meter component's props with an example", "part components is every component in a line"), which is real added meaning over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (describe the workspace) and immediately enumerates what the description contains: the index, routes, and one line per component and content type. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search, find_records, or add_component because it is positioned as a discovery/help entry point.

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?

"Call it first" gives explicit ordering guidance, and the description then explains the selection logic between no-arg, name-only, part-only, and part full. It tells the agent both when to reach for it and which argument shape fits which need.

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