list_workspaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (id, name, slug, role) in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about auth requirements, ordering, pagination, or whether non-active/invited workspaces are included.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the return-value detail. Every clause earns its place.

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, no-annotation list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It stops short of noting pagination or scope limits, which would be the only remaining useful additions.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The schema itself is empty and fully consistent with the description.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (workspaces) with an explicit scope qualifier: 'the user is a member of'. No sibling tool in the set touches workspaces, so there is no ambiguity to resolve, and the second sentence previews the returned fields.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery call to make before referencing a workspace id elsewhere, but the description never says when to use it, what prerequisites exist, or what to do if the list is empty. There are no competing siblings to route away from, so the gap is modest.

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