List workspace labels

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description adds meaningful behavior: the fields subject to masking (email, phone, postcode, NI number) and the toggle that disables it. Sorting is a minor addition. Pagination/return format is not addressed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and the redaction caveat. The parenthetical '(as documented)' is slightly redundant filler, but overall the text is tight and well-ordered.

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?

For a simple read-only, single-optional-parameter list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: scope, ordering, redaction behavior and the param's downstream use. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents include_contact_details, making 3 the baseline. The description goes further by tying the parameter's effect to downstream use (the unredacted name for list_workspaces' label filter), adding meaning beyond the schema text.

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 names a specific resource (labels) and scopes it precisely to workspaces the current user can access, plus states ordering. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast its purpose against sibling list tools like list_workspaces.

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?

It gives clear operational context: redaction applies unless include_contact_details is set, and the result's unredacted name should feed list_workspaces' label filter. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' framing, but the workflow guidance is concrete.

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