ed_list_workspaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe and read-only. The description adds scope information (own + faculty/staff public instances), but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like return format, pagination, or access restrictions. No contradiction with 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 description is a single, concise clause that packs all essential information: the resource type (workspaces), the parent context (Ed course), and the scope (own + shared). There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple list operation, the combination of schema (full parameter descriptions), annotations (read-only, non-destructive), and description (resource scope) is mostly complete. The main gap is that no output schema exists and the description doesn't specify the exact fields returned for each workspace, but the tool name and description make the basic return type clear.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with detailed descriptions: course_id explains how to obtain it (from ed_list_courses) and response_format has an enum with default. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: it provides the workspaces (cloud IDE instances) for an Ed course, including the user's own and faculty/staff shared public instances. This is specific about the resource type and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ed_list_courses (courses) and ed_create_workspace (create).

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the read-only listing operation, nor does it reference ed_create_workspace for creation or ed_delete_workspace for deletion. Sibling tools are present but not mentioned.

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