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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds a key behavioral detail—only workspaces the authenticated user is a member of are returned—which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, pagination, ordering, or return format, leaving some transparency gaps.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It is concise and easy to parse, earning the highest score for structure.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core purpose and scoping. It could be more complete by mentioning return fields or pagination, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap. Overall, it is mostly sufficient.

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 has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the description correctly focuses on the operation. With no parameters, baseline is 4, and the description adds value by clarifying the membership scope, which is not derivable from the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all workspaces the authenticated user is a member of'), providing specific scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which all focus on projects, tasks, or milestones rather than workspaces.

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?

The description implies usage for listing workspaces but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. With sibling tools like list_projects and list_tasks, the intended context is inferable, but the description does not directly state when this tool is preferred.

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