list_workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that sensitive files are excluded. This goes beyond the annotation information without contradicting it.

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, front-loaded sentence with the verb 'List' immediately. It is concise with a valuable parenthetical caveat, containing no unnecessary words.

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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description is largely adequate. It lacks an explicit return format, but the verb and resource make the output predictable. A slightly more detailed description of the path semantics or return structure would be beneficial.

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 covers the single parameter 'path' with a clear description and default, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds little beyond implying the path is relative to the workspace, so the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'workspace', and clarifies it covers 'files and directories' while excluding 'sensitive files'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_workspace_file, list_agents, and 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to enumerate workspace contents. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the behavior is straightforward and the parenthetical about sensitive files adds a relevant constraint.

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