herdr_workspace_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the read-only nature implicitly via 'list', but does not disclose details such as whether the result is ordered, paginated, or what 'open' means. For a simple list tool this is acceptable but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the operation with zero wasted words. It is concise and well-structured.

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), the description is reasonably complete. It states the primary behavior clearly. However, it does not describe the return format or any edge cases, which would make it fully complete.

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 the 100% schema coverage baseline gives a score of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none, and no gaps exist.

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 'List all open workspaces in herdr' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (workspaces), with an explicit scope ('all open'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like herdr_workspace_get, which presumably retrieves a single workspace.

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 listing all workspaces but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like herdr_workspace_get or state when to choose this tool over others. Sibling names give context, but no direct guidance is provided.

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