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 states this is a retrieval operation ('取得します'), implying it's read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what happens if parameters are invalid. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the purpose, making it appropriately 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 complexity (a read operation with 2 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover authentication needs, error handling, return format, or behavioral constraints. For a tool in a server with authentication-related siblings (e.g., 'authenticate'), this omission is significant, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 description adds minimal semantic context beyond the input schema. It mentions '指定されたコンテナ' (specified container), which aligns with the 'containerId' parameter, but doesn't explain the relationship between 'accountId' and 'containerId' or provide usage examples. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('ワークスペース一覧' - list of workspaces) with a specific scope ('指定されたコンテナの' - of the specified container). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_workspace' (singular) and 'list_containers' (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what a 'workspace' entails in this context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare to siblings like 'get_workspace' for single workspace retrieval, or indicate scenarios where listing workspaces is appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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