niri_get_workspaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description mentions the output contents (workspace index, names, output monitors, active status). However, it does not disclose any additional behavior such as ordering, real-time state, or potential errors. It is adequate for a simple query but not rich in context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'List all workspaces in Niri DE' immediately states the action and target, followed by a compact list of output details. There is no wasted wording or redundant information, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 low complexity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns, and the scope (all workspaces). The output schema provides the return-value structure, so the description does not need to detail fields. No additional context is necessary for a tool of this 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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools. The description does add value by clarifying the output fields, which covers the 'semantics' of what the tool returns.

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 uses the specific verb 'List', clearly identifies the resource as 'all workspaces in Niri DE', and enumerates the returned fields (workspace index, names, output monitors, active status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like niri_get_windows and niri_get_outputs, which target different resources or aspects.

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 context of when to use this tool is implied by its purpose: it lists all workspaces. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like niri_focus_workspace or niri_get_windows. The description does not provide exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations, so it stops at implied usage.

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