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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add a useful scoping fact—results are limited to what the current token can see—but it does not describe return shape, pagination, or failure behavior. For a zero-parameter list operation, this is acceptable but minimal.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It is a noun phrase rather than an imperative, but every word contributes meaning and the key scoping detail is front-loaded.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description is reasonably complete: it names the resource, the visibility scope, and the token dependency. It does not describe the returned fields, but the simplicity of the tool makes that a minor gap.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add.

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 identifies the resource (workspaces) and the access scope (workspaces the current token can see), so the purpose is understandable. It lacks an explicit action verb and does not differentiate from sibling list tools, but the tool name supplies the 'list' action.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: call this tool when you need workspaces visible to the current token. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, though sibling tools operate on different resources like brains and channels.

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