list_workspaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is a listing, scopes it to the API key owner's workspaces, and mentions alphabetical ordering. It could further specify return schema or pagination, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is strong 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the IMPORTANT guidance is clearly separated and emphasized. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a zero-parameter, low-complexity tool, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, how results are ordered, and how to act on them. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit instruction to find workspace IDs from the results.

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 is empty, so there are no parameters to document. The description compensates by explaining the key output usage — the workspace IDs to be used in subsequent calls. This meets the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workspaces'), with a precise scope: those belonging to the API key owner. It also adds ordering detail ('alphabetically by name'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_workspace or list_tasks.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: first, when users provide workspace names instead of IDs. It also instructs how to proceed afterward, using the resulting workspace ID in other tools like list_tasks and create_task. This is concrete, actionable guidance.

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