list_workspaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden, and it does so well by disclosing that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, returns id and name, and takes no functional arguments beyond the version guard. This is comprehensive for a simple listing 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?

The description is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, stating the safety and return, and providing context and parameter clarification. No filler or repetition exists.

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 (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, safety behavior, return contents, and parameter semantics. It is complete without needing to restate output schema 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?

Although the schema has 0% description coverage for the sole parameter, the description adds meaning by labeling server_version as a 'version guard' and clarifying that no other arguments are needed. This effectively compensates for the schema's lack of detail, though some specifics about the guard's format are omitted.

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 verb (List) and resource (workspaces), and specifies the scope ('the current user belongs to'). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_threat_models and list_capabilities by clarifying the user-centric scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to discover the workspace context, since models, controls, and compliance are scoped to a workspace. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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