workspace_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by stating it lists workspaces. Beyond the annotation, it adds the behavioral detail that filesystem roots are not exposed and that IDs are opaque, which is useful context about the data 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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then specifies key constraints. No filler or redundant wording; 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?

For a tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. It states what is returned, the ID format, and the exclusion of root paths, leaving no critical gaps for a simple list operation.

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, so the schema fully covers the parameter space with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies here as there is nothing to explain.

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 verb 'lists' and the resource 'authorized workspaces', adding that they are identified by opaque IDs and that filesystem roots are not exposed. This distinguishes it from the sibling workspace_list_documents, which would list documents, and clarifies the tool's scope.

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 implies usage by noting it lists 'authorized' workspaces, which tells the agent it returns those the user can access. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the narrow scope and sibling context make the intended usage clear enough.

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