list_workspaces

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It discloses the scope (accessible workspaces) and return fields, which is good, but it omits potential concerns like pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. For a simple no-parameter list operation, this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and scope, the second specifies the returned data. No filler or redundant wording.

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?

Given the absence of input parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool and understand its return. It could mention potential quirks like rate limits or pagination, but for a simple list endpoint, the information provided is sufficient.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema fully documents parameters). The description adds no parameter info because none exist, matching the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 lists all Bitbucket workspaces accessible by the authenticated user, with specific verb 'List' and resource 'workspaces'. It also specifies the return content (names, slugs, descriptions), making it unambiguous. It naturally differentiates from sibling tools like list_repositories and get_repository.

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 usage is implied: use this when you need the set of workspaces for the authenticated user. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use it versus alternatives, nor any conditional guidance. Since no sibling tool lists workspaces, this is a minor gap.

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