dsh_list_workspaces

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add a real behavioral fact beyond the schema — the plugin dependency — which is valuable, but it omits read-only/mutation status, ordering, and pagination behavior for what is presumably a safe read.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the dependency. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does and the one non-obvious prerequisite. Return shape and ordering are unspecified, but there is no output schema promising that detail, so the gap is minor.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. No parameter-related information is missing because the schema is empty.

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 (List) and resource (workspaces), and disambiguates the term by glossing it as 'project folders shown in the DeepSeek Harness sidebar.' That gloss is enough to separate it from dsh_list_sessions and dsh_list_runs, though those siblings are not named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the sidebar gloss, and it usefully states the precondition 'Needs the dsh-baton-host plugin.' However, it never says when to prefer this over dsh_list_sessions or what to do if the plugin is absent, so the routing guidance is only implicit.

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