workspace_list_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys that this is a read-only listing scoped to the active workspace, but it does not mention whether an active workspace must already be open, how results are ordered or paginated, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a list operation but lacks meaningful behavioral context.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler; it front-loads the verb and resource and adds the workspace scope. It is appropriately tight, although that tightness comes at the cost of missing contextual detail.

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 tool with three optional but effectively undefined parameters and no annotations, this description is too thin. It does not explain any of the filters, the relationship between 'results' and 'evidence', or when an agent should prefer this over related sibling tools. The output schema mitigates return-value questions but not invocation decisions.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention kind, limit, or paper_id. An agent cannot infer what values kind accepts, what paper_id filters by, or how limit behaves from the description alone. The schema provides only names, types, and defaults, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a distinctive resource ('stored evidence results'), and a scope ('across the active workspace'). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like workspace_list_papers and from single-result accessors like workspace_get_result, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over workspace_get_result, workspace_get_evidence, or the other list-related tools. No mention is made of intended workflows, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implied usage is 'list results,' which is not enough for an agent to select it confidently among many siblings.

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