List workspaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds beneficial context beyond that: it clarifies the scope (logged-in user's employment and personal workspaces) and the header requirement. It doesn't repeat annotation info and doesn't contradict it. Minor details like pagination or output format are handled by the output schema, so the description's extra context is sufficient.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is stated first, followed by a single relevant constraint. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded and scannable.

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 parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description covers all necessary details an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The scope and header note are the only operational nuances, and both are included. Nothing is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers all semantics. The rubric assigns a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since none exist. No deduction needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('Benepass workspaces') with clear scope ('for the logged-in user (employment and personal)'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_accounts and list_benefits by naming a distinct resource, and the note about not requiring a workspace header further separates it from other tools that may need one. Purpose is 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?

It clearly states when to use it (to list Benepass workspaces for the logged-in user) and provides a practical constraint ('Does not require a workspace header'), implying when this tool may be preferred over others that do require a header. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool or state a scenario where it should NOT be used, so it falls short of a 5.

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