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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds workflow-level behavior beyond that: it tells the agent to surface the list to the user and to mention the workspace name after a successful action. It stops short of describing what a workspace record contains, but the added behavioral context is real.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by an ordered rule set that reads as a decision tree rather than filler. It runs longer than a one-line lister normally would, but every sentence maps to a distinct usage case, so the length is largely justified.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what the list returns (e.g. workspace identifiers usable with switch_workspace), and it does not. It is otherwise complete: purpose, usage routing, and post-call behavior are all covered for a zero-parameter read tool.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter syntax for the description to compensate for, and schema coverage is 100% on an empty object. Nothing further is required here.

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 all workspaces') and scopes it precisely ('the user has access to'), which separates it from siblings like list_accounts, list_folders, and list_hashtag_sets that also list resources. An agent can identify the tool's output domain 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?

Explicitly covers all three decision branches: single workspace (use it, don't ask), user-named workspace (proceed and remember it), and multiple unnamed workspaces (call this tool, present the list, ask before posting/switching/fetching analytics). It also names the downstream actions that require confirmation, which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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