List workspaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context by explaining that only workspaces the connection can act in are listed and that the active one is flagged. It also hints at the session-scoped nature of the active workspace, which goes beyond the bare annotation without contradicting it.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the core function, pointing to an alternative, and offering usage guidance. It is slightly dense in the final sentence but contains no fluff or redundancy.

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's simplicity (no parameters, one output schema with the isActive flag), the description is remarkably complete. It not only explains what the tool does, but also integrates it into the broader workflow of switching workspaces and publishing, which is more than sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 is trivially 100% covered. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but none is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'workspaces (teams)', and it adds the distinctive behavior of flagging the active workspace via `isActive`. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like dropthis_account and dropthis_list.

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 explicitly names dropthis_account as an alternative for viewing the active workspace on the current session, and provides conditional guidance for publishing into non-active workspaces using dropthis_use_workspace or passing a workspace to dropthis_publish. This gives the agent concrete when-to-use and when-to-use-another-tool directives.

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