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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the scoping ('in this account'), the output feature ('item counts'), and non-destructive intent via 'List', but it does not mention permissions, ordering, pagination, or exact return structure. This is adequate for a simple read-only listing tool, but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and output, and the second provides conceptual context that helps the agent understand why workspaces matter. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 the essential information: what is listed, at what scope, and what output detail is included. It could be slightly more complete by stating return format or how this relates to other wyrm tools, but given the tool's simplicity, the remaining gaps are minor.

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 has no parameters, so the description correctly needs to add no parameter-level detail. The described account scope and item-count output provide the only meaningful invocation context, which fits the no-parameter schema baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('workspaces (project partitions)'), and adds the output characteristic ('with item counts'). It also clarifies the concept by explaining that workspaces isolate separate work streams, which distinguishes this tool from account-level quest or vault tools among the siblings.

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 gives useful context about what workspaces are and implies that this tool is for seeing the account's top-level project partitions. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions.

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