list_workspaces

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It discloses that results are limited to workspaces where the user is owner or member. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or whether results include all workspace details. 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It uses clear language and front-loads the core action. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks details on return format, pagination, or field information, which could be important for an agent to fully understand the response shape.

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 only parameter (apiKey) is fully described in the input schema ('Send16 API key (overrides SEND16_API_KEY env var)'). The description adds no further semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, yielding a baseline score.

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 a specific action ('List') and resource ('workspaces'), and specifies scope ('authenticated user has access to (owner or member)'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_workspace' which retrieves a single workspace.

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 implies usage (when you need a list of accessible workspaces) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_workspace' for details. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites mentioned.

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