get_workspace_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the return content (health, size, languages, counts), which is real behavioral value, and the 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation. It says nothing about behavior on an unindexed/empty workspace, whether it errors or returns zeros, or whether it is expensive to call.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the concrete metrics. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be trimmed without losing content.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the returned metrics does much of the work an output schema would. However, the missing prerequisite/state context (uninitialized workspace behavior) and the unspecified default scope of workspacePath leave real gaps for an agent deciding whether the call will return useful data.

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% and the single parameter is optional with a documented default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about workspacePath — notably it doesn't explain what workspace is reported when the path is omitted, which is the one semantic an agent might get wrong.

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 ('Get') and resource ('workspace status') and then enumerates the concrete payload: health, DB size, indexed languages, node and edge counts. That enumeration distinguishes it from the query-oriented siblings like find_symbol or get_architecture_map, though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (does the workspace need init_workspace/scan_workspace first for counts to be meaningful?), and no alternatives or when-not conditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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