list_workspaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of conveying behavior. It does make clear this is a non-mutating listing operation and adds the 'active' scoping, which is useful. But it does not describe any side effects, permission implications, ordering, or handling of projects with no workspaces, some of which could matter for correct interpretation.

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, short, front-loaded sentence that has no filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning, making it easy for an agent to ingest quickly.

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 one-parameter, read-only list operation with an output schema, this description is nearly complete. The main missing context is guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling workspace tools, though that is already captured in the usage dimension and the tool's simplicity makes this gap non-critical.

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 must compensate. It only says 'for a project,' which adds little beyond the already self-explanatory parameter name 'project_id'. It does not elaborate on the expected format, possible values, or relationship to other resources, leaving the parameter minimally explained.

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 provides a clear verb ('List') and resource ('workspaces'), scoped by project, and the 'active' qualifier adds specificity. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings such as get_workspace (single workspace), list_projects (different entity, and list_files (different resource).

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 a usage scenario: use this when you need the active workspaces belonging to a project. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_workspace' for a single workspace or 'list_projects' for projects. Usage guidance is reasonable but left to inference.

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