list_workspaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full safety/behavioral burden. It states 'List all' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not disclose details like pagination, ordering, or authentication. For a simple, parameterless list tool, this is acceptable but not thoroughly transparent, so 3.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It gets straight to the point and earns its place.

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?

Given the zero-parameter complexity and the presence of an output schema (covering return-value structures), the description provides complete context for a simple list-all tool. There is no missing information that the agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema is empty (100% coverage by default). The description adds semantic value by specifying that it lists 'all' workspaces, implying no filtering is possible. Per the rubric, 0 params gets a baseline of 4, and the description does not hurt that.

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 'List all BusinessMap workspaces' uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('BusinessMap workspaces'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_users and list_boards, which clearly operate on different resource types.

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 description provides clear context: use this tool to list all workspaces. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling-tool context makes it obvious that this is the workspace-listing tool, differentiating it from user/board/card listers. It lacks explicit exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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