workspace_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it lists projects (a read operation), but does not reveal any side effects, performance expectations, or limitations (e.g., whether hidden files are included, if the list is recursive). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no extraneous information. Every word 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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is minimal. It tells the agent what the tool does but not what the output looks like (e.g., is it a list of strings, objects with paths?). For a simple list tool this may be adequate, but additional context about return format or behavior on empty directories would improve completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist. It correctly implies the tool is a simple list with no filters, which aligns with the empty schema.

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 uses a verb 'list' and resource 'projects', specifying the location 'workspace directory'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like workspace_tree (which likely lists directory structure) and workspace_search (which searches files). However, 'projects' is somewhat ambiguous—it could refer to folders or a specific project concept—so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool (e.g., workspace_tree or workspace_search) would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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