list_workspaces

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing what the listing returns (git branch + changed-file count), which goes beyond the structured fields and is valuable given there is no output 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The resource comes before the payload detail, so the agent can stop reading as soon as it has the gist.

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 read-only lister with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential missing piece: what the result contains. Only the absence of any route to a sibling/alternative tool keeps it from being fully 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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics to document or omit.

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?

Clear verb ('List') plus a specific resource ('configured project workspaces') and even the payload ('git branch and number of changed files'). It is distinguishable from the browser/pty/git siblings, though it does not name a specific alternative.

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 usage by naming the resource, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to nearby tools such as git_status, project_context, or list_directory. Nothing tells the agent why it would pick this over those.

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