r_workspace_ls

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or return format. A simple 'List' implies no modification, but an explicit safety note would improve transparency.

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 sentence that directly states the purpose. It is concise and front-loaded. However, it could include slightly more context without becoming verbose, such as clarifying that it lists all objects or that pattern filters names.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description is somewhat complete. It lacks details on what 'objects' includes (variables, functions, etc.) and the output format, which an agent might need for proper handling.

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 input schema describes the pattern parameter with a brief description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 'List objects in the R workspace' uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'objects in the R workspace'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like r_list_packages (which lists installed packages) and r_execute (which runs arbitrary code).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context implies it is for listing workspace objects, but there is no mention of when to prefer it over other R tools. For a simple tool, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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