list_workspace_access

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavior. It indicates the return type (dict with status, message, details), but omits details about side effects (likely read-only), error handling for invalid workspace_id, or authentication requirements. The information is partially transparent but lacks depth.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, followed by prerequisites, arguments, and returns in a clear bulleted format. Every sentence serves a function, and the information is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single required integer parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how to prepare, and what to expect in the response. It lacks explicit differentiation from similarly named siblings but is otherwise complete.

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 provides only a type (integer) for workspace_id with 0% description coverage. The description adds the meaning 'L'ID de l'espace de travail', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. This compensates for the schema's lack of description but does not go beyond a basic label.

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 explicitly states the action 'liste les utilisateurs ayant accès' (list users with access) and identifies the resource 'un espace de travail' (a workspace). This clear verb+resource combination distinguishes the tool from sibling tools such as 'list_workspaces' (which lists workspaces) and 'list_document_access' (which deals with documents).

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 lists a prerequisite ('list_workspaces') to obtain a valid workspace_id, providing clear context for when the tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like 'list_organization_access', though the uniqueness of workspace access is implied.

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