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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: the response includes the user's role per workspace and that only MEMBER or OWNER roles allow writes. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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, no filler. The first sentence states the action and output, and the second explains why it matters in relation to sibling tools. Every clause earns its place.

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 list tool with a readOnlyHint, the description is complete: it covers purpose, return content (workspaces plus role), scope (workspaces you belong to), and the practical use case for navigating other tools. No output schema exists, but the description supplies the key return semantics.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; it adds relevant context about workspace reachability and write permissions instead.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Lists every workspace you belong to, with your role in each.' It clearly identifies the resource (workspaces) and adds scoping (belong to), distinguishing it from list_uts and other tool-specific siblings.

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?

It gives explicit context for when to use the tool: to discover which workspaces the other tools can reach and which ones are writable. It does not name a specific sibling alternative or state when not to use it, but for a zero-parameter discovery tool that is sufficient.

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