sigma_list_workspaces

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. However, the description says 'all workspaces' while the schema includes a limit parameter defaulting to 200, suggesting results may be capped—this nuance is not disclosed.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the key verb and resource. There is no wasted wording, though it sacrifices meaningful detail for brevity.

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?

While the output schema likely covers return values, the description omits important operational details such as the limit parameter's effect and the meaning of 'all' when a limit exists. For a list tool, this is a material gap.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds nothing about the 'limit' parameter. The schema merely labels it 'Limit' with a default, leaving the agent to infer its meaning without support.

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+resource ('List all workspaces') which clearly identifies the operation. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools, but the resource name itself provides that distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about pagination or the limit parameter. The description leaves the calling conditions entirely unstated.

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