List execution workspaces for a company

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

The description adds the exact API path (GET /api/companies/{companyId}/execution-workspaces) and authorization class ('board_or_agent'), which are beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, or other behavioral aspects. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, the description provides moderate added value.

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 three sentences: one for purpose, one for API details, and one for authorization. It is front-loaded and concise, with no unnecessary words. It earns a 4 because it is efficient, though slightly more structure could improve readability.

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 listing tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides the purpose, API path, and authorization context. It lacks mention of filtering or pagination, but the output schema likely covers that. Given the tool's simplicity and the annotations, the description is reasonably complete.

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 0%, meaning the description does not explain any parameters. The only parameter is 'companyId' (string, required), which is self-explanatory, but the description fails to add any additional meaning or context about the parameter. Per guidelines, low coverage requires compensation, which is absent.

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 title and description clearly state 'List execution workspaces for a company', using a specific verb and resource. Among many sibling tools, this one is distinct as it lists execution workspaces for a given company, with no ambiguity.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, without exclusions or context for when not to use it. No sibling differentiation is mentioned.

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