blazemeter_workspaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates these are read/list operations (non-destructive), and provides parameter details. However, it does not describe return formats, pagination behavior beyond the limit/offset parameters, error conditions, or required permissions. The operations are simple reads, so the missing detail is less critical, but still leaves gaps.

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 well-structured with clear action labels and parameter details. It is not overly verbose, though the formatting includes some redundant phrasing like 'Dictionary with the following required parameters' which is repeated. The main purpose is front-loaded, and all content is relevant.

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?

The description covers both actions and their parameters adequately. An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. The tool is relatively simple, and the description provides enough context to invoke read and list correctly. It could mention account_id behavior for 'list all workspaces' but overall it is complete for the intended use.

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 top-level schema only has generic 'action' and 'args' fields with 'args' being a free-form object. The description enriches this significantly by specifying exact parameters for each action: workspace_id for read; account_id, limit (with default/range), and offset for list. This is crucial for correct invocation and goes well beyond the schema's minimal information.

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 'Operations on workspaces' and lists specific actions 'read' and 'list' with resource scope, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like blazemeter_user or blazemeter_account, but the resource and verbs are specific enough for a baseline understanding.

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 guidance on when to use the 'read' action versus the 'list' action, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool over sibling tools or any exclusion criteria. The usage context is implied by the action descriptions, but there are no explicit alternative mentions or 'when not to use' instructions.

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