List Workspaces

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses that no run is started and nothing changes, that results are unpaged, that runs are refused while a workspace is in 'adopting' state, and when storage_readiness and the root copy become available. This is substantive behavioral context an agent cannot derive from the annotations.

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 purpose and scope are front-loaded and each clause carries information, but the enumeration of return fields (id, name, state, role, agent, main_session_id, etc.) partially duplicates the output schema that already exists, adding some avoidable length.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers scope, side-effect absence, state semantics, and the workspace_id branch. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by explaining the consequence of supplying workspace_id (single-workspace result plus conditional storage_readiness fields) rather than merely restating that it is optional.

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 names a specific verb and resource (list Workspaces) and defines scope precisely: workspaces the account owns plus those shared with it. It enumerates the returned fields and the state values, so an agent can tell this apart from create_workspace, delete_workspace, or the changeset tools without opening a 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?

It gives clear operational context: all workspaces come back in one unpaged response, and passing workspace_id narrows the result to a single workspace with extra storage_readiness detail. It does not explicitly name or exclude a sibling alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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