list-workspaces

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `idempotentHint: true`, so safety is established. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (ID, name, plan type, role, etc.) but doesn't add behavioral nuances like rate limits, auth scope, or pagination, which would be a bonus.

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 two sentences long, leads with the action and scope, and efficiently enumerates the returned data fields. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 simple list operation with zero parameters, read-only annotations, and a provided output schema, the description is complete enough. It could mention pagination or absence of filtering, but the phrase 'all workspaces' handles it adequately for most agents.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline is 4 for no params; the description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it also doesn't add any extra clarity about optional query capabilities (none exist).

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all workspaces') and explicitly scopes to 'the authenticated user'. It distinguishes itself from the many 'find-*' sibling tools by indicating a full, unfiltered listing.

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 usage is implied—it's the obvious list operation for workspaces—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the `find-*` alternatives or any exclusions. It doesn't say 'use this instead of X' or mention context like pagination.

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