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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, and the description adds meaningful workflow context beyond that: plan values returned, sign-in timing, single-vs-multiple workspace behavior, and downstream workspaceId propagation. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 front-loads the return content, then immediately explains when and how to use it. Every sentence carries actionable information 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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description provides enough detail about what is returned and how the resulting workspace id should be used. It is complete for the complexity of the operation.

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 input parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on return content and usage 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 states the specific resource (the user's Replo workspaces) and what is returned alongside each one (its plan: free, starter, or pro). It is clear enough that an agent can distinguish this from sibling list tools for projects, sites, files, and tasks without opening the 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?

It gives explicit timing and branching guidance: call right after sign-in, use the only workspace if there is one, ask the user once if there are several, then pass the chosen id as workspaceId on Sightglass calls. It also states the alternative use case of switching workspaces.

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