workspace_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a key side effect ('Makes the workspace active for subsequent tool calls') and describes the returned project brief in detail. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but that is not critical for an open operation.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome, and every sentence contributes useful information. There is no redundancy or filler, making it dense and efficient.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It enumerates the return content, input constraints, and activation side effect, making the tool's behavior complete and self-contained.

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 already documents the single 'path' parameter with examples, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds valuable semantics: the path can be an alias from workspace_list or an absolute path inside a configured root, clarifying the acceptable input sources beyond the schema's basic type description.

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 identifies the action ('Open a local repository') and the resource ('a local repository'), and specifies the rich return payload (languages, build system, commands, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like workspace_list and repo_open_remote by emphasizing local repository opening and activation.

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 clear context: it accepts an alias from workspace_list or an absolute path within a configured root, and makes the workspace active for subsequent calls. It does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternative tools for when not to use it, but the usage context is well implied.

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