get_workspaces

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

With no annotations, description must reveal behavior. It states the tool lists all accessible workspaces including members. However, it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or whether archived workspaces are included. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 that are front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every word adds value; no fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context: what it returns (all workspaces with members), and how to use it (first step). Could mention return format or limits, but sufficient for initial discovery.

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?

Input schema has no parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. Description does not add parameter information because none exist, which is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'List', resource 'Teams/Workspaces', scope 'authorized token can access', and includes members. It also indicates the primary use case: to discover team_id values, distinguishing it from sibling tools that require an existing team_id.

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?

Explicitly advises to use this tool first to find team_id values, providing clear usage guidance. Does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context implies it's the entry point for workspace exploration.

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