List workspaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: result ordering, that rows are returned with a count, and an explicit negative scope. It does not discuss pagination behavior or what happens when no workspaces exist, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and ordering, then routing, then return shape, then exclusions. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is padding or restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, routing, and a summary of the return shape ("workspace rows and count"). The only small gap is that count semantics and pagination across the 500-row maximum are unstated, though the schema covers the limit itself.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `limit` parameter is already well documented in the schema (bounds, default, non-mutating nature). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies rather than a higher score.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List saved video-planning workspaces") plus an ordering guarantee ("newest first") that the schema does not express. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_scripts and from the mutating workspace tools, so an agent can identify it without opening siblings.

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?

Gives a concrete downstream use ("obtain a workspace ID for get_workspace, assemble_workspace or generate_script") and names the sibling to use for a nearby-but-different need ("use list_scripts for script-version history"). It also states what the tool does not do ("does not create workspaces or assemble new examples"), closing the main mis-selection risk.

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