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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context by explaining that it reports workspace-access state, setup or permission requirements, and available workspace choices, which helps the agent understand the return content beyond the safety profile.

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 tightly written sentences with no wasted text. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a direct usage cue for the returned workspace options.

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 no parameters, rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and an output schema. The description covers what the tool checks and how the returned workspace choices are intended to be used, which is sufficient for an agent to call it 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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. With no parameters, the baseline score is 4.

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: check this connection's workspace-access state, setup/permission requirements, and available workspace choices. It also implicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting that returned workspace options are used when the user wants to select or switch workspaces.

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 context for use: call it to inspect access state and available workspace choices, then use the returned options when the user wants to select or switch workspaces. It does not explicitly name the sibling select/switch/reset tools or state exclusions, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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