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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful context beyond the schema: entries can be unavailable and then carry an unavailableReason, and type callFlow means the tool executes a workspace flow with caller-supplied data. It does not state that this is a side-effect-free read, nor anything about permissions or result size limits.

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 a single front-loaded paragraph with no filler, and the most actionable detail (toolId handoff) appears early. It is dense but every clause conveys information; only the readme pointer feels slightly tacked on at the end.

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?

Because there is no output schema, describing the row shape (toolId, type, name, description, available, unavailableReason) is genuinely necessary and it is done well. For a one-parameter listing tool with no annotations, the remaining gap is mainly the format and source of workspaceId.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single workspaceId parameter, so the description must compensate. It implies the listing is scoped to "the workspace" but never clarifies the expected workspaceId format or where to obtain it (e.g., list_workspaces), leaving the agent to infer it.

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?

"List what can run in the workspace, one row per tool" gives a specific verb (list) and a resource with explicit row granularity, then enumerates the returned fields. It also differentiates itself from get_dynamic_tool_schema and run_dynamic_tool by naming them as the consumers of toolId, so an agent can tell the three apart.

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?

It states a prerequisite (read the readme "Dynamic tools" section first) and describes the downstream flow: take toolId unchanged and pass it to get_dynamic_tool_schema or run_dynamic_tool. That is clear context, but there are no explicit when-not conditions or mention of alternative listing tools such as list_block_types.

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