onda_workspace_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains the semantics of `mountedIn`, including the null case, which is essential behavioral information. It also implies a read-only operation, though it doesn't explicitly state the absence of side effects. The output format is fully specified, adding value beyond the 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?

The description is remarkably concise: a one-sentence purpose, a succinct output schema, and a one-sentence usage tip. Every phrase earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. The most important action ('List all workspaces') is front-loaded, and the format details are efficiently packed.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully documents the return structure and field meaning. It also provides a practical cross-reference to another tool, making the API context clear. For a simple list operation with zero params, this is complete and actionable.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, but it does clarify the output fields, which is more relevant here. Thus it meets the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 opens with 'List all workspaces,' a specific verb and resource. It also details the output structure (id, name, rootPath, mountedIn), making the tool's purpose and scope unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like onda_workspace_create or onda_workspace_focus.

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 explicitly suggests a complementary use with onda_window_list: 'Use this with onda_window_list to map workspaces ↔ windows.' This gives concrete context for when to call this tool. It does not mention exclusions or when not to use it, but for a listing tool that's straightforward.

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