List workspaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read/list operation and that results include ids, but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, response shape, or whether this includes only owned vs. shared workspaces beyond 'can access.' For a zero-parameter list tool, the disclosure is adequate but lean.

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 sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource immediately and adds the key scoping detail. There is nothing extraneous or repetitive.

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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose well. It discloses that ids are returned, which is useful for downstream tool chaining (e.g., using workspace ids with appsmith_list_applications or appsmith_create_application). Could mention pagination or whether shared workspaces are included, but for a 0-param list tool, this is near-complete.

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 0 parameters, so there is nothing to document. Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description correctly notes that results include workspace ids, which hints at the useful field in the return value even without an output schema.

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'), the resource ('workspaces'), and the scope ('the authenticated user can access, with their ids'). It is distinct from sibling tools like appsmith_list_applications and appsmith_list_pages, which address different resources. The phrase 'can access' adds a permission scoping nuance.

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 listing is scoped to authenticated user's accessible workspaces, providing context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or name a sibling alternative (e.g., when to prefer appsmith_create_workspace or appsmith_whoami for the current user's context). The usage context is reasonably clear from the resource and scope framing.

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