list_workspaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, that results are scoped to the current member, pagination, or what the response contains. Only the weak implication of 'show' signals a read operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with zero waste, front-loading the 'use first' guidance before the follow-on condition. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 three-parameter, fully documented read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for selection but leaves out what the agent gets back and how filtering scopes results. Annotations are absent, so more behavioral context would have been warranted.

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 100%, and the filter, fields, and paidAccount parameters are each documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning about these parameters, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, matching the baseline of 3.

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 the resource (Trello workspaces) and the action ('show'), plus its position in a workflow ('use first ... before drilling into its boards or members'). It distinguishes itself from deeper workspace tools like workspace_get and workspace_boards by framing itself as the entry point, though it never uses an explicit verb like '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 gives an explicit trigger ('when the user asks to show Trello workspaces') and a concrete follow-on situation ('needs to choose a workspace before drilling into its boards or members'). It does not name specific sibling tools to prefer instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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