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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden: it discloses the access-scope behavior (only workspaces the principal can reach) and enumerates the returned fields, which is meaningful since no output schema exists. It omits ordering, pagination, and the empty-result case, which keeps it short of 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoping, then return fields, then the clarifying definition and next step. The parenthetical about 'mode' and the 'any combination, one or many of each' clause are slightly more verbose than strictly needed but still earn their place by preventing misuse.

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?

Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing context itself: what is listed, what each item contains, what a workspace is, and where to look next. Pagination/ordering behavior is the remaining gap.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly makes no attempt to describe inputs.

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?

Specific verb+resource (list all workspaces) with the exact scoping qualifier: 'the authenticated principal has access to.' It also distinguishes itself from list_surfaces by defining a workspace as a container of surfaces, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to list_surfaces for inspecting workspace contents, which is a real alternative an agent could confuse with this tool. It does not, however, contrast with flat siblings like get_workspace or list_workspace_members, so the when-not guidance is only partial.

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