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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the meaning of an empty list ('you have been granted no workspace, not that the team has none: ask the user for access'), which is a non-obvious operational detail. It also explains the meaning of the `capabilities` field and `isGeneral`. This is above what annotations provide, though it doesn't discuss rate limits or pagination.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then details on return shape and semantics in clearly delimited sections. Every sentence adds distinct value (opaque IDs, return fields, empty-list meaning). 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 no-param, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, return shape, field meanings, edge-case semantics (empty list), and the relationship to a sibling. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description confirms 'Takes no parameters,' which is consistent with the empty schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('workspaces you can access') and adds scope ('what you may do in each'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from workspace-list_artifacts by explaining the relationship (the artifact row carries the workspace id). No ambiguity about which sibling to pick.

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?

The description implies when to use it (discovering reachable workspaces and their capabilities) and explains the relationship to workspace-list_artifacts. It doesn't name explicit exclusions or say 'use X instead of Y' when the user already knows the workspace id, but the context is clear.

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