List workspaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the 50-per-page pagination loop and its 'short page means end of list' termination rule, plus the privacy consequence of include_contact_details (redaction disabled).

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 tight sentences with the scope and return shape front-loaded, followed by pagination behavior and the parameter passthrough caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys the return shape at a high level (workspaces with group and pinned flag) and the pagination contract. The one gap is that first and max_results semantics are left entirely to the schema, but the essential calling contract is present.

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 description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description's note that q, group_id and label map to the API's q, g and l parameters and that the upstream spec does not document them largely restates what the schema fields already say, adding only mild extra confidence about their opacity.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('The current user's workspaces') and adds scope ('a practice usually keeps one per client') plus the fields surfaced (group, pinned status). It does not, however, name the sibling it competes with (get_workspace, list_workspace_members), so an agent must infer the 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named, despite siblings like get_workspace and list_workspace_members that overlap. The only contextual hint is that a practice keeps one workspace per client, which describes the data rather than when to call this tool.

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