list_workspaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the underlying endpoint (GET /openapi/v1/applications), states what is returned (the workspaces), and explains the grouping semantics of the resource. For a zero-parameter read-only list this is solid; it lacks only pagination/size hints, a minor gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the noun phrase and its disambiguation, then the endpoint, then the follow-up tool routing. Nothing is padding; every sentence adds usable information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not the description's job, and the description still volunteers the useful `id`-based follow-up. The only omission is a contrast with the sibling list_scopes, which would fully close the loop on selection.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because none exists, and the empty schema is fully consistent with a parameterless lister.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List application workspaces') with a clarifying gloss ('policy folders / ADM scopes') and a note on what each workspace groups. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like list_scopes or list_policies_for_workload without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent onward: use the returned `id` with `get_workspace_policies` or `get_conversations`. That cleanly describes downstream usage. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over the similar-sounding `list_scopes` sibling, so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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