listAsanaWorkspaces

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't mention whether there are any side effects, pagination behavior, or rate limits. For a simple list operation this is adequate but minimal, similar to the TDQS 4.3 example.

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 sentence with 12 words, front-loading the core action and resource. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is very simple: no parameters and no output schema. The description explains the core function and scope adequately. It could optionally mention the return format (e.g., workspace IDs and names), but this is not critical for a basic list operation.

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 input schema already fully covers the parameter space. The description provides no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. This aligns with the baseline score of 4 for tools with no params.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieves'), the resource ('a list of workspaces'), the source ('from Asana'), and the scope ('associated with the authenticated user'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listAsanaProjects or listAsanaTasks, which target different resources.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to get workspaces for the authenticated Asana user. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the resource type itself naturally separates it from other list tools. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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