list_workspaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the list operation and the optional filter, but omits mention of pagination behavior despite the page and per_page parameters in the schema, and does not explain whether 'all' means a single page or all pages. No information is provided about authentication requirements, rate limits, or ordering.

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 sentences, front-loading the main purpose and adding the optional filter in the second sentence. No filler or redundant language exists.

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 tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description captures the core operation and the main filter. However, it is incomplete regarding pagination semantics, has no usage guidance versus sibling tools, and lacks any behavioral notes, making it minimally sufficient.

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 schema has no field descriptions (0% coverage), so the description is the only source for parameter meaning beyond types/defaults. It explains project_id as a filter, but does not explain page or per_page, leaving their purpose implied by the schema defaults. This is partial compensation for the low 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 identifies the tool as a list operation for workspaces, using the verb 'list' and the resource 'workspaces', and clarifies that workspaces are Kanban boards. This distinguishes it from single-item retrieval tools like get_workspace and from creation tools like create_workspace, though it doesn't explicitly name siblings. The wording is specific and unambiguous.

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 the context of listing all workspaces and optionally filtering by project_id, which implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_workspace for a single workspace or how it relates to list_projects. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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