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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses return ordering (matches on-screen order), the default filtering (archived hidden), and a key side effect (surface slugs feed surface-scoped calls). It omits auth/permission needs and any pagination or size limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and organized logically (scope, slugs, ordering, filtering). Some redundancy ('in any combination, one or many of each; this tool tells you exactly what it has') adds words without new meaning.

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 two-param read tool with no output schema, the description conveys scope, ordering, and default filtering sufficiently to call it correctly. It could say more about the return shape (surface fields) and behavior on empty/missing workspaces, but the essentials are present.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the org-prefixed vs bare slug form and the archived default. The description mostly restates the archived behavior rather than adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb+resource ('List the surfaces inside a workspace') and defines scope and relationship to create_surface. However, it never contrasts itself against sibling list tools (e.g., list_workspaces) that an agent might confuse it with.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to enumerate surfaces in a workspace, and pass archived:true to see hidden ones. There is no explicit when-to-use-when-not guidance or named alternative beyond the create_surface cross-reference for surface kinds.

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