workspace_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides almost none: read-only nature is only implied by 'List', and there is no mention of recursion depth, sort order, pagination behavior, or error handling for out-of-root directories. The 'configured roots' phrasing hints at a sandbox boundary but never states what it enforces.

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 tightly written sentence with the resource enumeration front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the compression comes partly at the cost of the missing usage and parameter detail noted elsewhere.

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 described. But for a three-parameter list tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation in the schema, the description leaves too much unspecified — scoping rules, pagination, and sibling boundaries are all absent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the three parameters (limit, offset, directory) are completely undocumented; the description must compensate and does not. Only 'within configured roots' loosely gestures at the directory parameter, while limit and offset get no mention at all — an agent must guess that pagination applies and what the defaults accomplish.

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 ('List') plus three concrete resource types (local models, generated artifacts, profile folders) and a scoping constraint ('within configured roots'). An agent understands the operation, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings like profiles_list, artifact_read, or settings_catalog that appear to overlap.

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 call this versus profiles_list or artifact_read, both of which sound like they cover part of the same ground. It also never explains what 'configured roots' means or what happens if the requested directory falls outside them.

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