List Clockify workspaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does clarify that results are scoped to the authenticated user, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, error behavior, or the response shape. For a zero-parameter list tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. It contains no redundant phrasing or filler, earning its place perfectly.

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 zero-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the action and the return scope, which is enough for an agent to know what to expect. A more detailed description could mention that the output is an array, but that is inferred from 'lists'.

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 rubric sets a baseline of 4 in this case. The description correctly implies there is nothing to configure, and the schema confirms this. No additional parameter explanation 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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and identifies the exact resource ('workspaces') with a clear scope ('available to the authenticated user'). It distinguishes well from sibling list tools like clockify_list_tags and clockify_list_projects because the resource is different.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to see available workspaces), but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of other tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. For a simple read-only list, this is minimally sufficient but lacks explicit guidance.

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