workiva_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 of disclosing behavior. 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is a basic behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose any details about pagination, sorting, permissions, or return format. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate but lacks depth, meriting a mid-range score.

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 with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and is immediately front-loaded. There is no redundant or unclear content.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally viable. However, it does not provide any context about what constitutes a workspace, whether it lists all workspaces or only accessible ones, or any other scope information. This is a clear gap, but for a simple list tool with no parameters and schema presence, the minimum bar is met.

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). Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and no additional information is required.

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 'List workspaces.' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'workiva_list_workspaces'. It adds no new information and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools beyond what the name already does. This qualifies as a tautology.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For a tool with many sibling list tools, this lack of usage guidance is a significant gap.

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