emacs_workspace_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List all' conveys a read-only, side-effect-free operation, but it does not describe the return shape (e.g., names, order) or clarify how 'tabs' relate to workspaces.

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 six-word sentence containing only the essential verb, resource, and scope. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 listing tool, the definition is largely complete: an agent knows what the tool does and needs no argument details. It omits output format details, but 'List' strongly implies a list of workspace/tab names, and the absent output schema makes this gap minor.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline score of 4 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 clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('all workspaces/tabs'). The word 'all' distinguishes it from workspace_current/switch/create/delete/save, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

The phrasing implies this is the tool to call when an agent needs an enumeration of all workspaces/tabs rather than current-workspace lookup or workspace mutation. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against sibling workspace tools.

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