list_workspaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses ordering behavior ("owner first"), auth requirements ("Requires login"), and what additional information is returned (whether a standard exists). It doesn't explicitly state read-only or return format, but the verb "Lists" makes that obvious and the core behaviors are covered.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the verb and resource, then packs relevant details (ordering, standard existence, login requirement) efficiently.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It identifies the primary output (workspaces), an ordering nuance, the auth prerequisite, and an extra data point. Minor gaps like pagination or exact return structure are not critical for this simple list tool.

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, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly omits any parameter details, and no addition is necessary.

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 action ("Lists"), the resource ("my workspaces"), and adds specific details: owner-first ordering and whether a standard (word list + naming rules) exists. This distinguishes the tool from sibling list tools like list_entities or list_domains.

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 gives clear context by scoping to "my workspaces" and noting "Requires login," implying when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but for a simple parameterless list tool, this is sufficient context.

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