list_workspaces

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

Given no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states this is a read-only 'returns' operation and adds domain context about workspaces. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors such as pagination, ordering, or response structure details. An output schema exists, which would cover return values, but the description itself leaves some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 two sentences with no waste. The first sentence gives the core purpose; the second explains the workspace concept and directs users to create_workspace for a different need. Every word 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 no-parameter list tool, the description is sufficient: it states the purpose, explains the domain concept, and relates to start_run and create_workspace. It relies on the output schema to define the return fields. It could mention edge cases like empty lists, but that is a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and full schema coverage (no required properties), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed. It does not introduce ambiguity or miss any parameter-related semantics.

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 clearly states 'Returns the tenant's workspaces' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining how workspaces are used in the system (passed as workspace_id to start_run) and pointing to create_workspace for the alternative use case of creating a new analysis.

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 provides clear usage context: it defines what a workspace is, explains it is passed to start_run, and suggests using create_workspace when the user just wants to run a new analysis. This implies when to list (i.e., when you need existing workspaces) versus when to create, though it does not explicitly contrast with read_workspace for single-workspace retrieval.

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