list_workspaces

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 safety is covered. The description still adds real context beyond that: the listing is scoped to what 'this connection can use' and returns ids explicitly intended to be reused as arguments elsewhere. It omits pagination or completeness details, keeping it from a 5.

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 sentences, no filler. The primary capability is front-loaded and the actionable follow-up ('pass an id ... to any other tool') follows immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does state that workspaces and projects are returned with their ids. It does not describe the shape of the response (e.g. nesting of projects under workspaces or list format), but for a simple discovery tool this is nearly sufficient.

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% and both parameters already document their origin ('from list_workspaces') and default-omission behavior. The description only echoes that ids come from this tool, adding no syntax or filtering semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workspaces and projects'), plus the useful detail that ids are included. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling create_* tools by being the read-only enumerator, but it never names a sibling it is not, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It clearly states the purpose-driven workflow: fetch ids here, then 'Pass an id as workspace / project to any other tool to act there.' That is strong contextual guidance for when to use this tool, though it does not state any when-not conditions or name an alternative tool.

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