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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds that the response also carries the user's display name and instructs how to present results (by name) before passing the uid onward. It doesn't cover edge cases such as zero workspaces, but the behavior described is accurate and additive.

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 short sentences: what it returns, when to call it, then what to do with the result. The chaining instruction is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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, read-only discovery tool with an output schema and annotations already in place, the description supplies everything missing: the trigger, the display convention, and the next call to make with the returned uid.

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 only field mentioned, workspaceUid, belongs to the sibling call rather than this schema, but it is correctly framed as a hand-off token rather than an input here.

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+resource ('Get the current user's display name and the workspaces they belong to'), which is clearly distinct from sibling listers like list_projects, list_folders and list_assets. It also names the exact field (workspaceUid) the agent will need downstream.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'when the request does not identify a workspace' or 'when a destination workspace must be selected'. It also spells out the follow-up step ('pass the selected uid as workspaceUid to list_projects'), which is the alternative-selection guidance an agent needs.

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