List workspace aliases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavior: 'Side effects: none beyond database reads' and 'Failure modes: returns an empty list when no aliases exist or the filter matches nothing.' This gives clear transparency.

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 structured with labeled sections (Purpose, When to use, Inputs, Side effects, Output, Failure modes). It is concise and every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately explains the output briefly. It covers purpose, usage, side effects, and failure modes, providing complete context for a simple list tool.

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 input schema covers the parameter with a description, and the tool description adds 'workspace_id_or_uri optionally scopes the list.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds marginal value, meriting a 4.

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 explicitly states 'Purpose: Inspect workspace alias mappings,' providing a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'register_workspace_alias' and 'suggest_workspace_aliases' by focusing on inspection.

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 a specific usage scenario: 'call when an agent is unsure whether two filesystem roots point to the same repository memory.' It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the provided guidance is clear and actionable.

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