unclick_workspace_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description still adds real value beyond them: a privilege requirement (superuser only), the fact that shared rather than personal credentials are used, and a constraint on the area argument. It omits any statement of result ordering or paging behavior, though the schema covers those.

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?

Three short sentences, access restriction and scope front-loaded, with no wasted prose. The final sentence largely duplicates the schema enum, slightly reducing density but not hurting readability.

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 read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description supplies the missing operational context: who may call it and which credential domain it touches. Return shape and pagination are handled by the schema, so nothing critical is absent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter (area enum, limit, relative_path) is well documented in the schema. The description only echoes the area constraint without adding format or path semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('list the shared UnClick Dropbox workspace') and adds a meaningful scope distinction ('No personal Dropbox connection is used'), which separates it from generic Dropbox listers. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close siblings unclick_workspace_read / unclick_workspace_write, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Superuser/God only' gives an access precondition, which is useful usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus unclick_workspace_read, workspace_list, or dropbox_list_folder, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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