slack_list_workspaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List all configured' conveys a read-only operation and the scope, while the second sentence discloses exactly what information is returned. It does not mention authentication or failure modes, but these are minor for a zero-parameter listing tool.

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 short, purposeful sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable output details without any filler or repetition.

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 simple, parameterless listing tool, the description is fully complete. It states what the tool lists, the scope of that listing, and the specific fields an agent can expect in the response, compensating for the absence of an output schema.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and the input schema already documents everything vacuously. There is no ambiguity for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured Slack workspaces'), and explicitly names the output fields: aliases, team names, and the default workspace. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like slack_list_channels or slack_list_users, which operate on different resources.

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 intended use is clear: call this tool when you need to discover the set of configured Slack workspaces and their identifiers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource-focused wording makes the appropriate context obvious, and there are no closely overlapping siblings.

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