list_workspaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is scoped to the token's access, but it doesn't explicitly state that it's read-only, nor does it mention return format or pagination. The verb 'List' implies a safe read, but the description is minimal and doesn't add significant behavioral context beyond that.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It's concise and immediately clear.

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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate. It specifies what is returned (a list of workspaces) and the scope (token access). One might expect more detail about the output structure, but for a zero-param list tool this is reasonably complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is complete (empty properties). The description needs to add nothing about parameters, and it doesn't. Baseline for 0 params is 4, which 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 states the action ('List'), the resource ('workspaces'), and clarifies the scope with a parenthetical ('companies') and the access constraint ('this token can access'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_workspace or list_members.

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 clear context: it lists all workspaces accessible by the current token. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope is evident. No exclusions are stated, which is acceptable for a simple list tool.

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