list_mcp_integration_workspaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description's main contribution is clarifying the return structure (global access mode and per-workspace enablement). It does not add details on pagination or errors, but given the annotations and simple nature, it is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, and includes a direct usage link. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 list tool with an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers the main purpose, return content, and usage context. It is nearly complete, though it could mention that it is read-only (covered by annotations).

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%, and the parameter 'id' is sufficiently documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning or usage hints beyond the schema, 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'which workspaces can access an MCP integration'. It specifies the return includes global access mode and per-workspace enablement, and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_mcp_integrations and update_mcp_integration_workspaces by explicitly linking to the latter.

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 advises 'use before update_mcp_integration_workspaces', giving clear context for when to call. It also mentions audit/permission review. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though the guidance is strong.

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