List VWO workspaces

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, stating that it lists accessible workspaces. It does not add significant behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, but it also does not contradict them.

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 two sentences: the first clearly defines purpose and output, the second provides usage guidelines and a crucial warning. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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 list tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It tells what is returned (ids and names) and when to use it. A minor gap is not mentioning that results can be filtered by parameters, but this is mitigated by the schema. Lacks output schema but not essential.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (status, includeCurrent). The description does not add additional semantics for these parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: listing VWO workspaces accessible by the API token, with ids and names. It also provides specific use cases (resolving workspace names to ids, seeing available workspaces) and a strong negative instruction ('Never guess a workspace id'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like vwo_get_workspace.

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 says when to use the tool ('whenever the user refers to a workspace by name and you need its id, or to see what is available') and gives a clear directive to never guess an id. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for most scenarios.

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