workspace_list

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the meaningful behavioral fact that there is exactly one configured workspace and no selection is possible, which aligns with the empty input schema. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sentence of only seven words, with the core behavior front-loaded and no filler. Every word contributes meaningful 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?

With zero parameters, a true output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not need to enumerate return values because the output schema supplies that detail.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description's 'one configured' clarifies why no arguments are needed, adding useful context beyond the empty schema rather than repeating it.

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 ('Return') and identifies the exact resource ('the one configured, read-only workspace'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is easily distinguished from siblings like list_files and git_status, which operate on files or repository state rather than the workspace object.

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 this tool is for retrieving the single configured workspace object, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over the sibling tools. There are no exclusions or alternative routing, so an agent must infer usage from the name and wording.

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