list_known_workspaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the result includes an active/selected indicator, but says nothing about scope of 'known' (active vs. archived), ordering, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but thin for a zero-signal tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the key noun (workspaces) early. 'Discovers and lists' is mildly redundant, costing a fraction of a point, but there is no filler.

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 no-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers what it returns (known workspaces plus the active one). It would be fully complete with a note on whether inactive/archived workspaces are included, but the gap is minor.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The empty schema and additionalProperties:false match the described no-argument behavior.

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 gives a specific verb (discovers/lists) and resource (development projects and workspaces) and adds a distinguishing detail — it shows which is currently active. This separates it from the mutating sibling set_active_workspace, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the read step that should precede set_active_workspace, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. Minimum viable for a trivial list tool.

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