workspace_list_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful scope of 'all items' and optional type filtering, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or how to handle large workspaces. This is acceptable given the annotations, but not rich.

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 clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the optional filter is presented after the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple read-only enumeration tool with fully documented parameters and clear annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It is slightly incomplete because it does not describe what exactly an 'item' is, what fields are returned, or whether pagination applies, but these are minor gaps given the low tool complexity.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters: workspaceId and type. The description merely restates the optional type filter with examples already present in the schema, so it adds little semantic value beyond the structured definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all items in a workspace') and clearly distinguishes itself from workspace_list, which would list workspaces themselves. The optional type filter is also stated directly, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 implies the core use case, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the many per-item-type list tools such as lakehouse_list, notebook_list, or pipeline_list. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer routing from sibling names.

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