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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is free; the description adds genuinely new behavior: ordering ('newest activity first'), the project:<slug>:* naming convention, and that the current-workspace field appears only 'if any'. It stops short of describing the shape of the shared_by_you records or ordering for granted workspaces.

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?

Every sentence carries real information, but the opening is a long triple-clause construction loaded with nested parentheticals, and the usage guidance is buried at the end. Leading with the verb and the three return buckets would make it far more scannable.

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 output schema and no parameters, the description must carry the return shape alone, and it does: three result groups plus a conditional current-workspace field. Ordering for the granted-workspaces and shared_by_you sections is unspecified, a minor omission for a read-only list.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still supplies the key-prefix convention that governs the project entries and clarifies the grantor-name argument used by the sibling switch_workspace, which is extra context rather than schema repetition.

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 enumerates exactly what the call yields: own projects keyed by project:<slug>:*, workspaces granted by others, and shared_by_you invitee status, plus the current session workspace. That is unambiguous for an enumeration tool and rules out write siblings like switch_workspace, though it opens with a noun phrase ('The places...') rather than a verb, so the action itself is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Three concrete triggers are given ('request is about one project', 'asks who has access', 'whether an invitee came in'), and it explicitly routes the agent to switch_workspace(name=<grantor>) for entering a workspace. The gap is list_invites: the invitee-status content here overlaps that sibling and the description never says which to prefer.

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