list_code_workspaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read-only list operation but does not mention permissions, filtering, or any side effects. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first delivers the core purpose, and the second provides useful context about what a code workspace is. No extraneous words or repetition.

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 parameterless listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the main action and resource. It explains terms but could be slightly more complete by noting that the output includes workspace IDs or status, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter details since none exist. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate; no additional meaning is required.

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 clear verb 'List' and identifies the specific resource 'all code workspaces'. It explains what code workspaces are, distinguishing this listing tool from sibling tools that perform actions on individual workspaces.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: listing all available workspaces. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, the context and naming make it obvious that this is for obtaining a list before using other code_workspace_* tools.

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