list_workspaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: it specifies the pool-limit fields (idle_reap_s, max) and per-entry liveness fields (alive, idle_s, current), which tells the agent what state it is observing. It does not discuss caching or freshness of the list, but for a read-only listing the disclosure is substantial.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, followed by entry shape, usage trigger, and full return shape. No sentence is filler and the key scoping information comes first.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out both the per-entry and top-level return shapes, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. It is essentially complete for a zero-arg read tool, with only minor gaps such as ordering or staleness of the listing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 0-param baseline of 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (workspaces), and disambiguates the term by parenthetically defining a workspace as a freecadcmd process. This distinguishes it from siblings like use_workspace and close_workspace without needing to open any schema.

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?

"Use to see who is holding a slot before claiming or closing one" gives a clear precondition for calling it, implicitly routing to use_workspace/close_workspace. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly as alternatives, so it is clear context rather than fully explicit routing.

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