List workspaces

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the lack of side effects. The description adds relevant context by specifying 'active' workspaces and restricting to the authenticated account, which goes beyond the annotations and provides meaningful behavioral expectations.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse, making it an efficient descriptor.

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?

While the description communicates the core function and the parameters are self-explanatory via the schema, there is no output schema or additional context about what a workspace is or what the returned items will contain. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent that is unfamiliar with the domain, though the intent is mostly clear.

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 schema provides strong coverage for both parameters: 'kind' has an enum and default, and 'page' has maximum and exclusiveMinimum constraints. The description adds no extra meaning to these parameters, so it neither improves nor detracts from the schema's clarity; the baseline of 3 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?

The description clearly states that the tool lists 'Active project or contest workspaces of the authenticated account,' specifying the resource (workspaces), scope (authenticated account), and filter (active vs. not). It also distinguishes between two kinds via the 'kind' parameter, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools like list_my_projects, list_contests, or get_workspace. While the 'active' and 'authenticated account' scope is helpful, there is no direct comparison or exclusionary guidance, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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