list_workspaces

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. The verb 'List' and the scope 'this user's' strongly imply a read-only operation with no side effects. The description also clarifies that it returns the user's own workspaces, which is a useful behavioral constraint. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify data' or mention pagination, but for such a simple read operation, the description is reasonably transparent.

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, efficient sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then adds a helpful parenthetical definition. There is no fluff or redundancy, and every word earns its place. It is concise and well-structured.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema of the return format, the description is complete for an agent to correctly invoke this tool. It specifies the exact scope (user's own workspaces), defines the domain concept, and there are no hidden options or requirements. Nothing essential is missing.

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 baseline for this dimension is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain any parameters because there are none, and the schema confirms this. The description adds context about the returned data (workspaces as bundles), which is sufficient.

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 the verb 'List' with a specific resource ('this user's workspaces') and clarifies what workspaces are ('saved bundles of prompt/tool/RAG selections'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_workspace, update_workspace, and delete_workspace, as well as other list tools (e.g., list_conversations) by focusing on workspaces.

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 states exactly what the tool does, making its usage obvious. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but since no sibling tool provides the same listing capability for workspaces, the context is clear. The description effectively communicates when this tool is appropriate: whenever a list of the user's workspaces is needed.

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