workspace_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the crucial behavioral detail that the tool 'Does not list files' and clarifies the scope to remote HTTP/OAuth aliases, reinforcing the read-only nature. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise: only two sentences, each carrying essential information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately provides exclusions and usage caveats. 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?

Given the simple tool signature (one required parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, scope (remote HTTP/OAuth), exclusions (not for local/stdio, does not list files), and a usage warning. Nothing essential is missing.

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% for the single required parameter 'alias', and its description already explains the format and usage context. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Inspect a registered remote HTTP/OAuth workspace alias' and explicitly distinguishes what it does not do ('Does not list files'). It also sets the scope (remote HTTP/OAuth) and contrasts with local/stdio contexts.

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 provides explicit guidance on when not to use the tool ('Not needed for stdio/local provider calls; do not use workspace_* tools to fix local path access'). However, it lacks an explicit statement of when to use it or a comparison with sibling tools like workspace_create or workspace_list, which share the 'workspace' prefix.

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