list_workspaces

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that Default Workspace is not listed, archived workspaces don't count against the limit, and the max limit. However, it does not explain pagination behavior (before_id, after_id) or authentication needs, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Each sentence provides valuable context without waste.

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 presence of an output schema, return values are covered. However, the description lacks details on pagination (before_id, after_id usage) and ordering, which are important for a list tool. It adequately covers workspace scoping and limits but misses these behavioral details.

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 25% (only include_archived described). The description partially compensates by explaining the limit context (max 100 active workspaces) and archiving, but before_id and after_id remain unexplained, so it adds limited meaning beyond the schema.

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 states 'List workspaces in the organization' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_workspace or archive_workspace by implying it is a read operation, and adds context about the Default Workspace exclusion.

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 context for when to use the tool (listing workspaces, noting that Default Workspace is excluded and there is a limit of 100 active workspaces). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear.

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