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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely useful behavior — that omitting workspaceId falls back to a default workspace for generation tools — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, what happens with zero workspaces, or permission requirements beyond 'authenticated user'.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, positive trigger, negative trigger plus fallback. The routing information is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description never indicates what a returned workspace contains or which field an agent should pass as workspaceId — a small but real gap for a lookup tool whose output feeds other calls. Everything else an agent needs to decide whether to call it is present.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, default, or range information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 with scope: 'List all workspaces accessible to the authenticated user.' An agent can distinguish this from get_workspace, create_workspace, or search_workspace without opening a schema, and the scoping phrase clarifies whose workspaces are returned.

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 names the trigger conditions ('user asks to choose, inspect, or connect a Sequencer workspace' and 'a non-generation tool requires workspaceId') and the exclusion ('for standalone generate_image, generate_video, and generate_audio calls, do not call this'), plus the alternative behavior (omit workspaceId and the default is used). This is textbook when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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