list_workspaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses scope ('workspaces you are a member of') and return details (name and slug), which goes beyond the obvious 'list' verb. However, it doesn't explicitly state potential behaviors like pagination or empty list handling, but for a simple read-only tool this is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the second sentence explains why this tool matters. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to call it. There are no missing pieces given the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters and instead adds value by describing the output, which aligns with the baseline.

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 tool's function: 'List all Monnet workspaces you are a member of.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and adds valuable context by noting it returns the workspace slug needed by other tools, distinguishing it from siblings like get_workspace_memory.

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: 'Call this first if you don't know the workspace slug.' This tells the agent when to use the tool relative to others and frames it as a prerequisite for tools like get_motion and list_motions.

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