List Clockify workspaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the list is scoped to the authenticated user and hints at user-scoped configuration behavior, but it does not describe output shape, pagination, or behavior when no workspaces exist. Still, 'Lists' implies a non-mutating operation.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the config_root usage guidance is a single clarifying addition. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a low-complexity listing tool with a single well-documented parameter and no output schema. The description gives enough behavioral context (auth scope and config_root usage) for a competent agent to call it. Minor gaps like response format are not critical for this simple tool.

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% and the schema already thoroughly documents config_root, including resolution instructions and caveats. The description adds marginal value by tying config_root to the 'user-scoped' condition, which is not in the schema. This is a modest but real addition over a strong baseline.

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 the verb 'Lists' and the resource 'workspaces,' with the scope 'available to the authenticated user.' Though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, the resource itself separates it from the many list_project/list_task/list_tag siblings.

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 a conditional usage instruction for config_root ('when this MCP is user-scoped'), which is a form of practical guidance. It does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternative list-related tools, leaving selection to be inferred from the resource name.

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