list_workbenches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned content (size keywords, sizes in metres, qualifying edit areas) and the behavioral consequence of setting a bench in a spec (preview summaries report fit). It doesn't mention auth, rate limits, or whether it's strictly read-only, but for a simple reference list this is good 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool provides and then how to use the result. It is appropriately sized with no filler, though the first sentence is a dense noun phrase rather than a clean statement of action.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in depth. The description still adds useful context about what the list contains and how it feeds into spec previews. For a parameter-free reference tool, this is nearly complete, with only minor ambiguity about whether it lists workbenches themselves or just bench size categories.

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 of 4 applies. There are no parameters whose semantics need explanation, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 clearly identifies the resource: bench size keywords (S, M, L, XL, XXL, MAX) with their metre sizes and the edit areas that meet or exceed each size. It doesn't explicitly state the verb 'list' or differentiate from sibling tools, but the tool name supplies the verb and the content is specific enough that an agent knows what it returns.

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?

It gives clear downstream context: 'Set one as `bench` in a spec; preview summaries then say whether the design fits and by how much not.' This tells the agent what to do with the output. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but for a reference-listing tool the guidance is solid.

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