get_workspaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The description states it lists workspaces the 'authenticated user belongs to', which implies a read-only, user-scoped operation. However, it doesn't disclose return format, whether it includes guest memberships, or any auth requirements beyond authentication. It also doesn't clarify potential pagination or ordering behavior. Decent context on scope but lacks richness.

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?

A single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It names the action (list), the resource (workspaces), adds a clarifying parenthetical (teams), and specifies the scope (authenticated user belongs to). Perfectly proportionate to the tool's simplicity.

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-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly identifies what it returns (workspaces the user belongs to) and the auth assumption. Given the tool's low complexity, the description handles the essentials. Could note whether inactive/archived workspaces are included, but this is a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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 has 0 parameters which code to 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms no parameters are needed, which is self-evident from the empty schema. The description adds minimal value here since there's nothing to explain. The 'belongs to' scoping is the only semantic addition beyond the schema.

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 states 'List all workspaces (teams) the authenticated user belongs to' with a clear verb (list), resource (workspaces), and scope (authenticated user's memberships). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_workspace (singular), get_workspace_members, and get_workspace_plan, which are distinctly different. It doesn't explicitly contrast against siblings but the plural form and scope make the purpose clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. The description implies 'to list the user's workspaces' but doesn't explicitly address when to use get_workspace (singular) vs this tool, or how it relates to get_workspace_members. The context is clear from the purpose but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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