list_output_guardrail_workspace_exclusions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it 'reads output exclusions only', states the required API key scope, emphasizes enterprise gating, and documents the 403 error on non-Enterprise plans. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying substantive information (purpose, usage context, permissions/error behavior). No redundant phrasing. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, exclusions vs. defaults, authentication scope, enterprise restriction, and error condition. An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation. Description is complete for tool selection and invocation.

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% with a clear description for organisation_id. The description reinforces the parameter by saying 'for one organisation', but does not add significant new semantic details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 workspaces excluded'), the resource ('organisation-wide output guardrails'), and the scope ('for one organisation'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool list_input_guardrail_workspace_exclusions by explicitly specifying 'output guardrails' and from the matching update tool by using 'list' and 'reads'.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to audit exceptions or establish the current state before the matching update tool'. It also clarifies what the tool does not return ('does not return the organisation's default guardrail list'), differentiating it from get_organisation_defaults, and notes enterprise gating and 403 behavior.

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