list_workspaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the general action (listing) but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, any side effects, permissions, or output format. The platform note is helpful 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. The verb and resource are immediately clear, and the platform qualifier is concise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and platform. It could mention return format, but for a lightweight listing tool this is adequate.

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 zero parameters, and the schema is trivially self-describing (100% coverage). The description adds nothing about parameters, but none exist, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('working directories and current project structure') and a platform qualifier ('WINDOWS'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_repositories and read_dir.

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 implies usage for inspecting workspace structure on Windows, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as read_dir or get_project_summary. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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