List Workspaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them: it discloses what the detail mode returns (cost summary, members), the unit convention (`ram` and `total_storage` are MiB), and that the id is reusable across sibling tools — none of which is in the annotations or schema.

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 sentences, no filler, and the primary behavior plus the parameter branch are front-loaded. The parenthetical unit note is slightly interruptive but does earn its place by preventing a unit-misreading error.

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 restated, and the description still telegraphs the detail payload. Both modes, the parameter rule, the unit convention, and the cross-tool id coupling are covered; only id-format edge cases are absent, which is 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it explains the parameter is optional, that omitting it lists, that its value is a workspace id, and specifically that the id equals the `namespace_name` from the list. Only the accepted id format/validation is left unstated.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List the user's workspaces') and immediately names the second mode ('show one workspace in detail with its cost summary and members'). The dual list/detail behavior is stated up front, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 an explicit branching rule: 'Omit `workspace` to list; pass a workspace id ... for details.' It also states a concrete use case against siblings — 'Other tools take the same `workspace` id, so use this to find it when the user names a workspace by label' — which tells the agent to call this as a resolution step before other tools.

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