list_workspaces

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

The description adequately discloses the tool's read-only behavior by stating it lists workspaces with additional data. It does not mention any destructive actions, permissions, or rate limits, which is acceptable since it's a simple listing tool with no annotations.

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 front-loads the primary action ('List all workspaces') and includes specific details. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return content (workspaces with window counts and last-focused window). The tool is simple, so this is complete enough, though could mention sorting or data format.

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 has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The high schema coverage (100%) means no additional parameter explanation is required, earning a baseline score of 4.

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 explicitly states the tool lists all workspaces across all monitors, including specific details like window counts and last-focused window. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_active_workspace' or 'list_windows', which have narrower scopes.

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 implies this tool is for getting a full overview of all workspaces, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_active_workspace' or 'list_windows'. No usage scenarios or exclusions are provided.

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