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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces read-only behavior while adding useful context about authentication scope and returned fields. It does not mention ordering or pagination, but for a simple zero-parameter list those omissions are minor.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core action and return shape stated immediately. 'Takes no inputs' and 'Read-only' slightly repeat the schema and annotations, but they are useful confirmations rather than harmful padding.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides everything an agent needs: who the list is scoped to, what each entry contains, why workspace_key matters, and that the operation is read-only.

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 takes no parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently simple. The description explicitly states 'Takes no inputs,' which matches the empty schema and leaves no ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list the Blaze workspaces the signed-in user belongs to. It also explains the returned fields, making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling workspace_info tool, which prevents a 5.

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 clear usage context by explaining that the returned workspace_key is required by every other workspace-scoped tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name an alternative such as workspace_info, so it falls short of full guidance.

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