workspaces_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the read-only nature by stating 'List' and detailing the return structure, which implies non-destructive behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination behavior, leaving gaps in operational context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, return details, Args, Returns) and front-loaded key information. Every sentence adds value, though the detailed return field listing is somewhat lengthy but necessary given the lack of output schema. Minor trimming could improve conciseness without losing clarity.

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 read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong context: it clearly explains the purpose, parameter, and detailed return structure. However, it lacks information on behavioral aspects like error handling or performance characteristics, which would enhance completeness for agent invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, with only a basic title for the parameter. The description compensates fully by explicitly documenting the single required parameter 'workspace_group_id' in the Args section with a clear explanation ('Unique identifier of the workspace group'), adding essential meaning beyond the minimal schema information.

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 specific action ('List all workspaces'), the target resource ('within a specified workspace group in SingleStore'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'workspace_groups_info' (which lists groups rather than workspaces) and 'list_virtual_workspaces' (which appears to list a different type of workspace). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool by specifying 'within a specified workspace group,' suggesting it's for listing workspaces within a particular group context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'list_virtual_workspaces' for comparison, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection in related scenarios.

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