List project workspaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds the specific HTTP method (GET) and endpoint, plus authorization class, providing some additional context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is short (two sentences plus title) with no redundant information. However, the title and first sentence repeat the same idea, which is slightly inefficient but not wasteful.

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, the description covers purpose, HTTP method, and auth. However, it omits details about the response (e.g., return type, structure) and any filtering or pagination, which would be helpful for an agent. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates this.

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% with no descriptions for the required 'id' parameter. The description implies 'id' is a project ID but does not explicitly clarify its purpose or format, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'project workspaces', and provides the exact HTTP endpoint. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like pc_post_projects_by_id_workspaces for creation, leaving the agent to infer uniqueness.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Mentions authorization class but does not specify when to use or when not to use, or contrast with related tools like pc_get_companies_by_company_id_execution_workspaces.

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