List workspaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'List' clearly signals a non-mutating read operation, and the parenthetical defines the scope. No hidden side effects are present for a parameterless listing tool, though output shape and pagination are not described.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action is stated first, and the clarifying phrase '(groups/teams)' adds useful disambiguation without bloating the text.

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 parameterless list operation without an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the resource, defines what workspaces are, and implies a list return. It could be more complete by noting how workspace listing relates to project listing, but this is a minor gap.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. Per the rubric, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' plus the resource 'workspaces' and immediately clarifies the domain meaning as 'groups/teams'. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling list_* tools such as list_projects, list_releases, and list_test_runs, which target different resources.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it should be used whenever a list of workspaces is needed, but it does not state exclusions or compare it with sibling list tools such as list_projects.

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