get_workspace_slxs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses the pagination behavior (auto-paginates until exhausted), the return structure (complete results, true count, next always null), the strict parameter acceptance, and the error condition (unexpected_keyword_argument). This goes beyond basic safety to explain exactly what the tool does internally.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, SLX definition, behavior detail, parameter constraints, and alternatives. Every sentence adds value; the use of bold and bullets improves scannability. It's appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 complexity (pagination, filtering non-support, alternatives), the description is complete: it explains the pagination effect, the exact return fields (results, count, next), the error on invalid params, and when to use it vs. alternatives. The existence of an output schema doesn't detract; the description preemptively explains the return semantics.

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% (workspace_name already described as 'The workspace to query (e.g. 't-oncall')'), so baseline is 3. The description adds 'It accepts only workspace_name' and the prohibition on other params, which reinforces schema constraints (additionalProperties: false) but doesn't provide deeper meaning about the parameter itself.

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 states 'List ALL SLXs in a workspace (structured JSON)' with explicit scope ('ALL', 'no filtering'), uses a specific verb+resource structure, and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by the emphasis on 'no filtering' and the explicit alternative for specific SLXs (get_slx_runbook) and searches (workspace_chat).

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('only when you need to enumerate every SLX for programmatic processing'), specifies what it does NOT accept (filtering params leading to errors), and lists clear alternatives with conditions ('One specific SLX... get_slx_runbook', 'Search/filter by topic... workspace_chat'). This fully satisfies the when/when-not/alternatives requirement.

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