workspace_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description discloses nothing: no mention of whether program_id narrows results, whether paging applies, or how many workspaces come back. With annotations doing the safety work, the bar is lower, but there is still no added behavioral context.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the second line duplicates the schema enum rather than spending those words on the undocumented fields and program_id parameters. It reads as under-specified rather than deliberately lean.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a three-parameter listing tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves two parameters unexplained and gives no usage context, so an agent cannot reliably call it with fields or program_id.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for three parameters. It only restates the workspace_type enum values, which are already in the schema enum and add no information; fields and program_id get no explanation at all, leaving their semantics (field projection? parent scoping?) entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Lists workspaces in Spira." An agent immediately knows this is an enumeration of workspace entities. It stops short of differentiating from the sibling workspace_get (single workspace retrieval) or the product/program/template search tools, which would have earned 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus workspace_get or the product_/program_/template_ search siblings. The only hint is the required workspace_type, from which an agent must infer that this tool is scoped to one workspace kind at a time.

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