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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context by listing the returned fields (sentence, status, recent runs) and notably the 'who a waiting run is on' detail. It stops short of disclosing pagination, limits, or volume behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return contents before the routing guidance. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

For a read-only list tool with one documented parameter, the description is nearly complete: it covers contents, use case, and sibling routing. Without an output schema it reasonably sketches returned fields, though it doesn't address result volume or pagination.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single workspace parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including default-token and API-key behavior. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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 specific verb (Lists) and resource (the workspace's Tasks), and defines what a Task is (sentence-orchestrated processes) rather than assuming the reader knows. It distinguishes itself from the sibling workbench_tasks_get, which reads one task in full.

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 when-to-use conditions: finding a task the user names (with a concrete example, 'claims intake') and seeing what's in flight. It names the alternative (workbench_tasks_get) and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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