list_workspaces

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that this is a non-mutating list operation covering all workspaces, but it omits return format, pagination, ordering, and whether any side effects or permission requirements exist. For a zero-parameter read-only tool this is adequate but minimal.

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 with no filler. It immediately identifies the action and scope, and every word adds meaning. This is an ideal length for such a simple tool.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the essential information an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It clearly states the operation and scope, though it could mention the expected return shape (e.g., a list of workspace IDs/names) for full completeness.

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 the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by saying 'every workspace', making clear there is no filtering or per-workspace input. There is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema already implies.

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 ('List'), a concrete resource ('workspace'), and a precise scope ('every workspace that exists on the Gateway'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_or_create_workspace and chat_with_workspace, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. However, the intended usage is reasonably implied: call this when you need an enumeration of all workspaces. More explicit routing to siblings would improve this dimension.

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