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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context by stating the ownership requirement and the important default that any mailbox not listed under a role gets read & write access to all folders and calendars. It does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, but the word 'list' and the nature of the description make this a minor gap rather than a significant one.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: what is returned, the unlisted-mailbox default, and the ownership restriction. There is no filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 simple list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly: it defines the result contents, the ownership scope, and an important default behavior. It does not describe the exact response shape or pagination, but those are less critical for a low-complexity, read-only list tool and are not demanded by the context signals.

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 schema covers the single 'workspace' parameter 100%, including that it can be a name or id and that it is only needed when the owner has multiple workspaces. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning 'workspace you own', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning the access roles of a workspace the caller owns, along with what each role allows, who follows it, and how it narrows mailbox access. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, assign, delete, or rename access roles. Even though it uses a noun phrase rather than a verb, the title and content together unambiguously establish a list operation.

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 conveys the key usage restriction that only workspace owners can call this tool ('Owners only') and that the workspace must be one the caller owns. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_access_role, assign_access_role, or set_access_role_capability. The parameter schema mentions list_workspaces for disambiguating workspaces, but that guidance sits outside the main description.

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