talk_workspaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly declares '只读，不创建或重命名工作区' (read-only, does not create or rename), which is a critical safety trait. It also specifies the output content ('精确名称和目录' – exact names and directories), offering meaningful behavioral context beyond the empty schema.

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 three short, focused sentences: the first states the primary function, the second clarifies read-only/non-mutating behavior, and the third connects the tool to its intended downstream use. No redundant words; each sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple 0-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns (names and directories), and when to use it (before talk_create). It does not mention pagination, error conditions, or authentication, but these gaps are minor given the tool's low complexity.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4; the description appropriately omits parameter details since none exist, and no additional compensation is required.

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 the tool's function: '列出已有 DSH 工作区的精确名称和目录' (list exact names and directories of existing DSH workspaces). It also explicitly distinguishes from mutation tools by stating '只读，不创建或重命名工作区' (read-only, does not create or rename workspaces), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a concrete usage scenario: '在 talk_create 中使用 workspaceName 选择工作区' (use workspaceName in talk_create to select a workspace), telling the agent when to call this tool. It also implies not to use it for creation/renaming via the read-only statement, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools (e.g., talk_list).

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