list_workspaces

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the read-only nature through the verb 'List' and adds scoping context ('currently hold speakers'), but it does not mention any ordering, filtering semantics, or access limitations. This is sufficient for a basic list operation.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, earning a perfect score.

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 has no parameters, an output schema, and a clearly scoped purpose, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it. The sibling list tools are distinguished by the workspace-specific 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?

There are no parameters in the input schema, so the description has nothing to add regarding parameter semantics. The schema covers 100% of parameters (none exist), which meets the baseline for 0-parameter tools.

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 ('List') and resource ('workspace namespaces') with a scope qualifier ('that currently hold speakers'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_voices or list_speakers. It goes beyond a mere restatement of the tool name.

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 usage for retrieving workspaces that have speakers, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other list tools or mention any alternatives/exclusions. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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