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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds useful context about the output scope (personal + organizations) and that it indicates the active workspace, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds the key detail about active workspace, and the pointer to switch_workspace is relevant and succinct.

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?

The description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (available workspaces and active status) for a simple listing tool. While it does not detail every possible output field, the presence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool make the description adequate.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-specific meaning. It provides a clear baseline for a zero-parameter tool, and the description's mention of scope and active workspace compensates for the empty input 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?

Clearly states the tool lists the user's available workspaces, including personal and organizational ones, and identifies the active workspace. This makes the purpose specific and distinguishes it from related tools like switch_workspace.

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 indicates the tool is for listing/checking workspaces and directs users to switch_workspace for changing the active workspace, providing a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use distinction.

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