list_workspaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the title, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of real behavioral context beyond that: results are filtered to what the caller can access ("accessible"), and it discloses the returned fields. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what an empty result means, so it is useful but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with no filler; the verb, scope, and return shape all appear before any padding could. Every token earns its place, and the parenthetical return-field list is a compact, high-value addition.

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, read-only enumeration tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, scope, and returned fields, which is most of what an agent needs. Only minor gaps remain, such as result ordering or whether the list can be large, and no output schema exists that would otherwise carry return details.

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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description contradicts or obscures the empty schema.

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?

"List accessible workspaces" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the parenthetical enumerates the returned fields (name, slug, id). The word "accessible" signals a permission-scoped result set, which distinguishes it from a hypothetical admin-wide listing. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list_* tools, but the resource name alone is sufficient differentiation here.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. Usage is only implied: with zero parameters and a read-only annotation, the agent can reasonably infer "call this to enumerate workspaces before using an id elsewhere." That implication is adequate but not stated.

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