List Workspaces

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a useful behavioral scope ('user has access to'), but does not mention return format, pagination, ordering, or read-only guarantees. 'List' implies non-destructive behavior, but richer behavioral context is missing.

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 that states the exact action and scope. It contains zero wasted words and is immediately scannable.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (zero parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It clearly covers purpose and access scope, though it leaves the response shape to inference. For a simple list operation, this is acceptable but not fully exhaustive.

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, so the description need not add parameter-level semantics. The schema is empty and already covers 100% of parameters, warranting the baseline score of 4 for no-parameter tools.

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' with a clear resource 'workspaces' and scope 'the user has access to'. This clearly defines the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like list_boards_in_workspace, which focuses on boards within a specific workspace.

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 usage when the user needs to see their accessible workspaces, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives like set_active_workspace or list_boards_in_workspace. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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