list_workspaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating the operation is safe and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying that it returns 'all' workspaces and includes 'IDs and names,' which complements the openWorldHint by confirming the complete dataset is exposed. It does not detail pagination or authentication, but for a read-only list with no parameters, this level of transparency is adequate.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence immediately states the core action and output. The second sentence provides practical guidance on using the results, earning its place. It is front-loaded and easily scannable, exemplifying concise and structured documentation.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It tells the user what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the returned data. The sibling context reinforces that workspace IDs are needed for filtering other tools, and this description fully addresses that context.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning since there are none. The description appropriately focuses on the output, and the lack of parameters needs no further explanation.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List all Gong workspaces with their IDs and names.' It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_users and list_calls by focusing on workspaces. The addition of 'with their IDs and names' clarifies the output scope, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when this tool is useful: 'Use workspace IDs as filters in list_calls, search_calls, get_trackers, and other tools.' This provides clear context on how to apply the results. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though no other sibling lists workspaces, so the guidance is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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