List workspaces

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the description's job is to add context. It does: it discloses the returned fields (last-modified time) and, importantly, warns that workspace names come from the filesystem and are untrusted data — a prompt-injection caution that no annotation or schema conveys.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and what each row contains, then the safety posture, then the untrusted-data caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 two-parameter, zero-required listing tool with full schema documentation and no output schema, this covers what an agent needs: what is returned, that paging exists, and that returned names must not be trusted. A minor gap is not stating how to continue paging or that an empty result is possible.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (limit, offset) carry their own descriptions plus bounds and defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'with paging' adds framing but no format or linkage detail beyond what the schema already states about page.next_offset.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus precise resource (Sn1per loot workspaces on this host), and it declares the shape of each row (name + last-modified time) and paging behavior. No sibling in the list enumerates workspaces, so an agent can immediately tell this is the discovery entry point rather than a findings/loot query tool like get_findings or grep_loot.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step that should precede grep_loot or get_findings, but the description never says that or states any when-not condition. The paging instruction it does give largely duplicates the schema's next_offset guidance.

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