list_workspaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the list is filtered by current user access and implies a read-only operation via the word 'list.' However, it does not elaborate on return format, pagination, or potential errors, though the output schema likely covers the return structure.

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 a single short Korean phrase that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. Every word is informative, with no filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless, simple listing tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It provides the core purpose and access scoping, though it is concise to the point of lacking some elaboration on behavioral details, which are not critical here.

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 and an empty schema, so the description correctly adds no parameter information. According to the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4.

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 translates to 'List of workspaces accessible to current user (for switching).' It clearly identifies the tool as a listing operation for workspaces, scoped to the current user's access, and indicates a specific purpose (switching). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_projects and list_customers.

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 phrase '전환용' (for switching) provides clear context that this tool should be used when the user needs to see available workspaces to switch between. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intended use case is evident, giving clear context without exclusions.

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