list_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 does disclose that only accessible workspaces are returned, which is useful, but it omits other behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, result shape, or authorization assumptions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers the core purpose, but there is no output schema and no annotations to explain return values or behavior. The optional filter is documented in the schema but the description does not clarify how it interacts with 'all accessible workspaces'.

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 input schema already covers the single parameter workspaceId with a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how filtering behaves, such as whether it is exact match or prefix match.

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 ('List') and resource ('workspaces') and adds the scope 'all accessible', which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous. The resource name also differentiates it from sibling list tools such as list_projects, list_columns, and list_tasks.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention the optional workspaceId filter or when filtering would be appropriate. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb and resource.

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