athena_list_workspaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the conceptual meaning of a workspace and the role of the returned id. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens if no workspaces exist, or any pagination or permission details. For a simple list tool with an output schema, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second defines the resource, and the third explains how to use the result. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description fully covers what the tool does, what a workspace represents, and how the returned id should be used by other Athena tools. With zero parameters and an output schema present, there are no significant gaps. The scope ('in this tenant') is also explicitly stated.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries full coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exists. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output's purpose rather than parameter details.

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 exact operation: 'List Athena workspaces in this tenant.' It further clarifies what a workspace is (an AWS account + region + Athena workgroup pinned as a query target), which distinguishes it from other list tools and gives the agent a precise mental model.

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 explicitly tells the agent how to use the returned value: 'The returned id is the value to pass as workspace_id on every other Athena tool.' This gives clear usage context and signals that this tool is the entry point for selecting a Athena workspace. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or when not to use it, but there are no direct alternatives for listing workspaces.

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