Retrieves the list of workspaces accessible to the current user.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the prerequisite-for-subsequent-queries context, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result size despite having start/total parameters.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The first sentence is a near-verbatim restatement of the title, which is mildly redundant but not harmful.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and why it matters (prerequisite for later queries). It is sufficient to call the tool correctly, though it could note that filters are optional and results are paginated.

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 100%, so all five parameters (id, name, roles, start, total) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no filtering or pagination semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('list of workspaces') with the scope qualifier 'accessible to the current user', so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not need to differentiate from siblings since no other workspace-list tool exists in the sibling set, but it also does not explicitly say so.

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?

'This information is required to execute most subsequent queries' gives a useful ordering hint (call this before other queries), which is more than nothing. However, there are no explicit when-not conditions and no named alternative, so it stays at implied usage rather than clear guidance.

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