workspace_info

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 explicitly reveals that the tool returns a cached state ('without re-reading the repository') and includes session-specific changes ('everything this bridge session has already changed'), which are important non-obvious traits. It does not mention whether it is read-only, but the passive phrasing implies it is.

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 two sentences: the first concisely defines what the tool returns, the second provides the intended use case. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully captures what the tool returns, highlights its key advantage (cached state), and gives a practical instruction for when to use it. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema fully documents the single optional 'workspace' parameter (alias, defaults to active workspace), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 defines the tool's function as providing the current state of a workspace, listing specific content areas (branch, working-tree changes, recent commits, detected commands, session changes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_status or git_log by emphasizing it summarizes everything without re-reading the repository.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to resume work' with a concrete example ('continue on quantix'). It implies when to use this instead of re-reading files or running individual git commands, but does not name specific alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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