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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing what the response contains — roles per workspace and which workspace the current connection acts in — which is not derivable from the annotations and is important for routing subsequent calls.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return details. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, return contents, and connection context well. A small gap remains: it does not say whether every workspace in the account is listed or only those the account is a member of, which matters in a multi-tenant setup.

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 takes no parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description reinforces that no filtering or arguments are involved, and instead scopes the result set to the signed-in account.

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 and resource ('List the workspaces') plus the return contents (roles, active connection workspace), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not name a sibling it is distinct from — e.g. whoami or get_workspace_overview — so differentiation is left implicit.

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 is implied: this is the enumeration entry point for workspaces before calling workspace-scoped tools. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no pointer to whoami or get_workspace_overview as the alternative for identity or per-workspace detail.

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