workspace_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It communicates a read-only 'Get' operation and identifies the outputs, but it does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., no workspace open), side effects, or the exact structure of the returned roots. For a simple getter this is minimally viable but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the action and the specific deliverables clearly, making excellent use of space.

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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description effectively communicates the tool's purpose and expected return value at a conceptual level. It could be more explicit about whether 'roots' are file paths or object references, but it provides enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect.

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 for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty schema fully defines the input. No additional parameter information is required.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('the workspace's key roots'), enumerating the exact items returned (event/asset/bank roots and the master bus). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like workspace_browser_current or mixer_master_info which target different aspects.

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?

Usage context is implied: you would use this tool when you need the fundamental root paths of the workspace. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives exist (e.g., mixer_master_info for master bus details), leaving the agent to infer the tool's specific niche among many info-related siblings.

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