workspace_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that paths are omitted by default as a defense-in-depth measure, that include_paths is an admin/ops opt-in, and that this is a GLOBAL-ADMIN privileged operation. It stops short of stating rate limits or what the admin scope concretely gates.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope/privilege constraint and the default behavior, with zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers privilege scope, default behavior, and alternatives. Complete enough to call correctly, missing only finer detail on what the admin path reveals.

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 coverage is already 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining WHY include_paths defaults to false (defense-in-depth, admin opt-in) rather than merely restating the default. It adds minor rationale beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('enumerate ALL workspaces') with an explicit scope qualifier (GLOBAL-ADMIN, ALL). An agent can distinguish this enumeration tool from sibling list/resolve tools without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes discovery use cases to agent_list / capability_list, giving a clear when-not condition. However it omits guidance on the closest sibling workspace_resolve, so the routing is not fully exhaustive.

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