List Workspaces

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

Annotations already declare the key safety profile: readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds a useful caveat that profile metadata is 'best-effort' and that results include direct URLs, but it does not explain authentication needs, empty-result behavior, or pagination limits.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence that states the core action and the notable output traits. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 simple read-only listing tool with rich annotations, a fully documented optional parameter, and an output schema. The description covers the essential behavior and caveats, though scope disambiguation from related workspace tools would make it complete.

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 single optional includeProfile parameter already documents its default and the GraphQL-only tradeoff when set false. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('List available AFFiNE workspaces') and adds useful scope details about metadata and direct URLs. It does not explicitly distinguish this flat listing from siblings like get_workspace or list_workspace_tree, so it falls short of a 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_workspace or list_workspace_tree. The listing intent is implied by the verb, but there are no stated conditions, exclusions, or alternative routes.

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