list_workspaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping fact that results come only from the legacy sys_aw_master_config table, but says nothing about default page size, ordering, or whether inactive records are included despite being a listing tool.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with zero filler. The disambiguating detail (table name and the negated alternative) is placed immediately, which is exactly what an agent needs first.

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 two-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema and read-only annotations, this covers the main invocation risk (picking the wrong workspace concept). Only minor gaps remain: default limit behavior and whether results are paginated or sorted.

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 description coverage is only 50%: 'active' has a short note but 'limit' is entirely undocumented, and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all. With coverage below 50-80%, the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and a specific resource (legacy Agent Workspace definitions, sys_aw_master_config), and explicitly negates the confusingly similar sibling family (Configurable Workspace UX applications such as list_ux_apps/get_ux_app). An agent can tell exactly which table it is enumerating without opening the schema.

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 'not Configurable Workspace UX applications' clause gives a clear exclusion rule that routes the agent toward or away from this tool. It falls short of naming a concrete alternative tool (e.g., list_ux_apps) or stating prerequisites, so it is strong context rather than a full when/when-not guide.

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