list_mcp_integration_workspaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's note about returning global access mode plus per-workspace enablement is useful framing but largely duplicates the output schema, and it says nothing about behavior for an unknown ID or any pagination/limit behavior.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the identification of the result contents front-loaded before the usage/sequencing advice.

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 annotations, a full output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description supplies what remains: purpose and placement in the read-then-update workflow. Only minor gaps, such as behavior on an invalid ID, are unaddressed and are arguably out of scope.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as accepting ID or slug. The description adds no syntax, format, or resolution detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus a precisely scoped resource: 'which workspaces can access an MCP integration'. It also names the mutation sibling it pairs with, so an agent can separate it from list_integration_workspaces and list_mcp_integrations without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use context ('for audit or permission review') and a concrete sequencing rule ('use before update_mcp_integration_workspaces'). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it, but the routing to the correct alternative is clear.

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