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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the listing, including that each run shows 'who a waiting run is on', which is not derivable from the schema. It stops short of pagination, ordering, or auth notes, but those gaps are modest given the annotation coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the routing rule to the sibling tool. The parentheticals add real specification (field list, concrete example) rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema. The only omission is list-size behavior or ordering, which is minor for a scoped, read-only listing tool.

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 schema has 100% description coverage on the single `workspace` parameter, including the personal-token vs. workspace-API-key nuance, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter detail of its own, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Lists the workspace's Tasks'), defines what a Task is ('sentence-orchestrated processes'), and previews the returned fields (sentence, status, recent runs). It also distinguishes itself from workbench_tasks_get, which 'reads one in full', so an agent can tell the two apart 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?

Gives an explicit use case with a concrete example ('find a task the user names ("claims intake")'), a second use case ('see what's in flight'), and names the alternative that handles the single-item case. Nothing about when to pick this over its siblings is left to inference.

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