monday_list_workspaces

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

The description directly contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation. The parameter description for approval_ref states 'Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write,' implying the operation could be involved in write resumption, while the annotation marks the tool as read-only. This mixed signaling undermines the clarity of the tool's side effects and could mislead an agent into expecting write behavior.

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 reasonably structured with a clear opening line, a routing statement, and a labeled list of parameters. It is not excessively verbose, but it includes redundant platform tool references and a generic routing phrase that could be trimmed. The parameter list is organized, making it easy to scan, but the overall length is slightly more than necessary for a simple list operation.

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?

The description covers the input parameters and routing constraints but lacks context about the tool's output or typical use cases. While the output schema exists (albeit not shown), the description does not mention what the tool returns, which would help an agent understand the result. It also omits any discussion of prerequisites, limitations, or error conditions, leaving the agent with only partial context for deciding when to invoke it.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. The 'Args:' section does provide one-line explanations for each parameter, such as 'project_id: Authenticated Project UUID' and 'effect: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it.' However, some explanations are vague (e.g., 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation') and the approval_ref explanation conflicts with the read-only nature, reducing the clarity of the parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool as a Monday connector operation for listing workspaces via the function name 'list_workspaces' and the platform tool reference. It is specific to the Monday system, but it does not explicitly state 'list all workspaces' or elaborate on the returned data, making it slightly less direct than a fully explicit purpose statement.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information, leaving the agent to infer that it is for Monday workspace listing based solely on the name.

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