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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing what is returned (ids, names, and granted-flow counts) and the runtime nature of interfaces, which matters since no output schema exists.

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-loads the core action and uses a single em-dash elaboration plus one short return sentence. No wasted phrasing, though the parenthetical example list is slightly verbose.

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 simple two-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is largely adequate and even covers return contents. However, the undocumented includeArchived flag leaves a real behavioral gap that an agent would need to resolve.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters, but it says nothing about includeArchived or whether archived interfaces are excluded by default. The workspace parameter is already well documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 interfaces in a workspace") and elaborates on what an interface is (self-contained screens like a custom chat, control panel, or prototype). The listing intent clearly contrasts with napkin_interfaces_get, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 by the verb and the workspace scoping, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives like napkin_interfaces_get or napkin_interfaces_view. Nothing states prerequisites or when this is the wrong tool.

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