workspace_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that counts and agent status are aggregated, which hints at the cost and shape of the scan, but says nothing about ordering, filtering, or whether all workspaces are returned.

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 sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (labels, counts, aggregate status) conveys distinct information about the result.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not the description's job, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is scope — whether this lists every workspace unconditionally — which matters for an agent deciding between it and workspace_get.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('workspaces') and an enumeration of what each entry carries (labels, tab/pane counts, aggregate agent status). It is clearly distinct from workspace_get in spirit, but never names the sibling or states the enumeration-vs-single-item distinction explicitly.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus workspace_get, tab_list, or pane_list — tools whose names imply overlapping enumeration. The agent must infer that this is the top-level discovery call.

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