switch_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Switch' which implies mutation, but does not explain what happens on invalid workspace names, whether the operation is synchronous, or if there are side effects like changing focus. For a state-changing action, this is a significant gap.

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 single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and immediately provides illustrative examples. There is zero waste, and the key information is conveyed efficiently.

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 description is minimal and adequate for a simple switch operation, but it omits error-handling behavior and any mention of the return value (despite an output schema being present). It also doesn't note that special workspaces might require a prefix. For a tool with no annotations and a single parameter, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 input schema has a single parameter 'workspace' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description compensates by providing example formats ('1', 'special:scratchpad'), which clarifies the expected value shape. However, it doesn't explain the meaning of the 'special:' prefix or enumerate all valid formats, so it adds value but leaves some ambiguity.

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 action 'Switch to a workspace' with a specific resource (workspace) and provides concrete examples ('1', 'special:scratchpad'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workspaces (which lists) and toggle_special (which toggles special workspaces). The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description implies its purpose (switch to a workspace) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like listing workspaces first, nor does it clarify the difference from toggle_special. However, the examples hint at the workspace naming convention, giving some implicit context.

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