getWorkspaces

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it explains the visibility field in responses (detailing access levels like 'personal,' 'team,' etc.), includes usage examples with API calls, and advises on error handling (asking for workspace ID if missing). However, it doesn't disclose potential behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or authentication requirements, which could be relevant for an agent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but it includes extensive bullet points and examples that add length. While the content is informative, some details (e.g., visibility field explanations) might be redundant if the output schema were provided or if annotations covered more. The structure is clear but could be more streamlined for an agent-focused tool definition.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, response details (visibility field), and examples. However, without an output schema, it doesn't fully explain return values or potential error responses, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer behavior from examples alone.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already fully documents the three parameters (type, createdBy, include) with descriptions and enums. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it references 'type' and 'createdBy' in examples and context, but doesn't provide additional meaning or clarification. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Gets all workspaces you have access to.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that indicates a read operation. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'getWorkspace' (singular) or 'createWorkspace,' which would require mentioning it returns multiple workspaces versus a single one or creation operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool, including detailed examples for different scenarios (e.g., 'List my workspaces,' 'List my personal workspaces,' 'List all public workspaces'). It also advises on prerequisites (calling GET `/me` first for 'my ...' requests) and fallback strategies (using this tool to get a workspace ID if none is provided). This covers when-to-use, alternatives (implied via parameter combinations), and context-specific instructions.

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