list_workspaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations by stating that results are 'fully paginated' and that the tool returns every accessible workspace, plus it explicitly notes it takes no arguments.

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 short sentences, no filler. The purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the no-argument note is valuable because it directly prevents invocation mistakes.

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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with safety annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral facts: scope, pagination, and lack of arguments. No output schema exists, but the description clearly communicates what the tool returns conceptually, so an agent can invoke it correctly.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by stating 'Takes no arguments,' which removes any ambiguity an agent might have about whether hidden or optional parameters are expected.

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 names a specific verb ('Lists') and a specific resource ('every Bitbucket workspace') with an explicit access scope ('the authenticated credentials can access'). It also clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_repositories and list_profiles by naming the resource type.

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 makes the use case clear: call this when you need all workspaces accessible to the authenticated credentials. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool duplicates this exact purpose, so the context is sufficient.

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