list_workspaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as automatic storage of output and returning an object ID for further reference, but it does not explicitly state read-only safety or any side effects. This adds moderate value beyond a simple list.

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 somewhat verbose with redundancy in the first two sentences. It is structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by output details, but could be more concise. The information about object ID usage is useful but could be integrated more tightly.

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 simplicity of the tool (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose, output fields, and how to use the result (object ID). It is fairly complete, though it could mention potential limitations like pagination or authentication requirements.

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, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by describing the output structure (fields like name, ID, languages, idle timeout) and how to use the object ID. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3, but not 5 as it could be more specific.

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 that the tool retrieves a list of all workspaces available to the user, using specific verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'list of all workspaces'. It also enumerates the per-workspace fields (name, ID, supported languages, idle timeout). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_workspace or other list tools, settling for a score of 4.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_workspace or other list tools. It merely states what it does without contextual advice, resulting in a low score.

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