List workspaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it calls `GET /owners`, returns workspace IDs, and is the intended mechanism for discovering which workspace to set as RENDER_WORKSPACE_ID. This goes beyond the annotations with practical insight.

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 mostly efficient but opens with a redundant 'List workspaces.' that restates the title and the immediately following sentence. The 'Usage:' section adds value, but the first sentence could be removed. Overall, it is slightly repetitive but not bloated.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it lists, optional filters, the endpoint, and how to use the result (setting RENDER_WORKSPACE_ID). It does not detail pagination behavior, but the schema documents the `limit` and `cursor` parameters, so this gap is acceptable.

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 100% description coverage, so the parameters are fully documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning by mentioning optional filtering by name or owner email, but this is already implied by the schema. No additional semantics are provided for `limit` or `cursor` beyond what the schema states.

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 lists workspaces accessible by the API key, optionally filtered by name or owner email. It identifies the specific resource (workspaces) and endpoint (`GET /owners`), which distinguishes it from other list tools in the sibling list. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like `render_list_projects` or `render_retrieve_owner`.

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 gives clear context: this tool returns workspace (`tea-…` ids) your API key can reach, and advises setting RENDER_WORKSPACE_ID so other tools needing an `ownerId` stop asking. This is actionable usage guidance, though it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives.

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