query_workspaces

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'READ permission' indicating non-destructiveness but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or error behavior. Minimal transparency beyond the read-only hint.

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 sentence with no redundancy. However, it is very terse for a tool with 4 parameters and multiple actions; more structured front-loading of key information (e.g., required parameter usage) would improve usability.

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 complexity (4 parameters, 4 action enums) and the presence of an output schema, the description fails to explain pagination, error scenarios, or prerequisites beyond 'READ permission'. It leaves gaps despite the schema covering parameter semantics.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the action descriptions already in the schema (e.g., 'list returns all workspaces matching filters') without adding new meaning or clarifying parameter interactions beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'get', 'list', 'check' actions on workspaces, and explicitly mentions 'READ permission', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'modify_workspaces'. It covers all four actions in the input schema.

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 a read-only use case via 'READ permission' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_streams or modify_workspaces. No when-not-to-use or conditional guidance provided.

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