List workspace pins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add extra behavior. It adds 'shared workspace' and 'explicit attribution,' which provide some context about scope and output. However, it omits details like pagination, ordering, or whether the full content or just metadata is returned.

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 a single, short, front-loaded sentence: 'Read shared workspace notes and http(s) links, with explicit attribution.' Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify the return value; it does indicate the returned items (notes and links). However, it remains vague about project scoping, result format, and attribution details. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the project_id parameter or explain how it relates to the operation. The tool name and property name infer the meaning, but the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and specifies the resource as 'shared workspace notes and http(s) links,' which makes the tool's purpose clear. The title 'List workspace pins' reinforces this. It distinguishes from sibling add/remove tools by implying a read operation, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it operates per project (despite the project_id parameter) or exclude scenarios where other list tools (e.g., list_projects) would be more appropriate.

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