list_workspaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the listing behavior and optional filters but does not mention that it is read-only, any pagination or ordering behavior, or what 'metadata' includes. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 wasted words. It delivers the primary action and optional filters efficiently, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no annotations or output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: it doesn't describe the return format (metadata fields), whether results are paginated, or how it relates to sibling tools like search_workspaces. A more complete description would add these details to be minimally viable.

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 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters (tags, status, stale_days). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, simply restating that filtering is optional, which is already clear from the schema's optional fields.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all workspaces with their metadata,' using a specific verb and resource. It implies a broad scope ('all') and optional filtering, which distinguishes it from the single-workspace get_workspace or tree-based get_workspace_tree, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage for general listing: 'List all workspaces' and mentions optional filters ('by status or staleness'). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like search_workspaces or find_stale_workspaces, nor does it state any exclusions.

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