List workspaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results are membership-scoped and that IDs can be reused for scoping, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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 beginning with 'Use this when' that carries both the trigger and the follow-on use of the returned IDs. Nothing superfluous.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations, the description supplies the essential trigger and the downstream purpose of the returned IDs. Only the shape of the returned workspace records is left implicit, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema.

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 the baseline is 4; there are no argument semantics for the description to explain. The description correctly implies a no-input call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: listing the Lizard workspaces the user belongs to, including the membership scope ('they belong to'). It is clearly distinct from mutating siblings like workspace_create or workspace_delete, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with whoami or domain_owned_list.

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?

Gives concrete triggering conditions: the user wants to see their workspaces, or needs a workspace ID to scope a project lookup. No explicit when-not or named alternative, but the intended context is clear.

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