get_workspace_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses what is reported (including database existence and resolution layers), implying a read-only operation. It stops short of explicitly stating side effects or failure modes, but the disclosed behavior is sufficient for a get-info tool.

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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose and then give usage guidance. Every clause adds value: what is reported, why it matters, and when to call. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, the meaning of 'belief state', and typical usage scenarios. It leaves no major gaps for the agent to infer.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed. It instead explains the context and outputs, which aligns with the empty 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'reports' and clearly identifies the resource (workspace info), listing concrete outputs (workspace id, resolution layer, database location, existence). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on workspace identity rather than claims, graph, or hypotheses.

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 says 'Call it when the graph is unexpectedly empty or two clients disagree about what has been established' and provides the likely cause. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly distinguishes it from alternatives that operate on graph content.

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