workspace_list_files

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only discloses two returned fields. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, whether listing is recursive, whether all files or only shared ones are included, or any permission requirements — all relevant for a zero-argument tool that enumerates remote state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the returned attributes are both stated immediately. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 trivial zero-argument list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what comes back. However, it omits ordering, result-size limits, and whether the listing is scoped to a workspace, leaving gaps an agent would want before invoking it blindly.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of 'size and last writer' in the description usefully ties to the response shape rather than to any input.

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 a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('shared workspace files') and even names the payload fields ('size and last writer'). It is distinguishable from siblings like workspace_get_file and workspace_file_history, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for browsing a workspace before calling workspace_get_file. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of alternatives, and no stated prerequisites such as needing a workspace identifier.

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