list_workspaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals a non-obvious and potentially confusing behavior (empty list for personal accounts despite a workspace existing in the UI) and clarifies that only Studio workspaces are included. This goes beyond typical descriptions.

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 only two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second adds a critical caveat in a clearly labeled note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It explains what the tool returns (Studio workspaces), its limitations (empty for personal accounts), and reassures that projects remain functional. This is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific details. It appropriately avoids discussing parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function: listing HacknPlan workspaces visible to the API key. The verb 'list' and resource 'workspaces' are specific, and the caveat about Studio-only results distinguishes it from other listing tools like list_projects.

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 about when this tool is appropriate: it lists only Studio workspaces, while personal accounts return an empty list. It also notes that projects still work independently, which helps the agent decide when to rely on this tool. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative for other scenarios.

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