List workspaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety and repeat-safety are covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the response marks the active workspace and reports the plan's workspace allowance, which is return-value information not covered by any annotation. It does not describe ordering or result-size behavior, hence not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what it returns, what a workspace is, and when to call it. The most decision-relevant content (every workspace, active one marked) is front-loaded with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing the returned content (all workspaces, active one flagged, allowance). Combined with the annotations covering the read-only/idempotent profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly. The one omission is a pointer to use_workspace for switching the active workspace, which would round out the multi-workspace workflow.

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 takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics for the description to elaborate. It correctly adds no invented parameter guidance.

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 states a specific verb+resource with clear scope: 'Every workspace on the account,' distinguishing a full listing from the single-workspace siblings like use_workspace or get_brand. It also defines what a workspace is ('a separate brand: its own content, its own connected social accounts, its own analytics'), so an agent grasps the concept immediately. It stops short of naming a sibling to contrast against, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

'Check this before acting when the account might have more than one' gives a concrete trigger condition for calling the tool, which is unusually actionable for a list endpoint. There is no when-not guidance and no explicit pointer to the alternative for switching (use_workspace), but the context for use is clear.

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