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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the access-scoping behavior ('this user can access'), which tells the agent results are permission-filtered, but it says nothing about result size, ordering, or empty-set behavior for a list 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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the resource and scope are front-loaded before the returned shape and the downstream hint. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential information: what is listed, the scoping rule, and the shape of each item. Only minor gaps remain (ordering/pagination, empty results), which are unlikely to block a correct call.

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 nevertheless adds useful semantics by naming the returned id field and telling the agent to feed it onward as 'workspaceId', which is meaning beyond the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the workspaces') plus the scope ('this user can access') and even the returned fields ('{ id, name }'), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. No sibling tool lists workspaces, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from list_flows, list_connections, and the rest.

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 only usage guidance is downstream ('Pass id as workspaceId'), which implies this should be called before tools that need a workspace identifier. There is no explicit statement of when to call it, when not to, or what to do if the list is empty, so usage is only implied.

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