wave_list_workspaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does flag the runtime dependency on the Seashell Helper block, which is real behavioral context. It does not say whether output is paginated, what happens when the helper is absent (error vs empty list), or how large the list may be — notable gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 tight sentences, no filler. The capability statement comes first and the prerequisite follows, so the most important information is front-loaded.

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-param, no-output-schema tool the description does most of the work: it names the returned fields and the runtime prerequisite. The only shortfall is failure-mode behavior when the helper is not running, which an agent would want to know before calling.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description instead spends its words on return-field meaning, which is the useful direction here.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') plus its resource ('Wave Terminal workspaces') and even enumerates the returned fields (IDs, names, icons, colours). It is clearly a read-only enumeration tool, distinct from mutation siblings like wave_create_widget or the profile-oriented list_workspace_profiles, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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?

It states one concrete precondition ('Requires the Seashell Helper block to be running'), which is genuinely useful. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over list_workspace_profiles or how it relates to wave_helper_status / wave_connect_helper, so the agent has to infer the workflow.

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