list_workspaces

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

The description implies a read operation but discloses no behavioral details (e.g., pagination, ordering, authentication requirements). As there are no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adequately describes the action but could mention what the output contains.

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 of 8 words, perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential functionality. However, it could mention that the result is a list of workspace objects, which would complete the picture for agents unfamiliar with the API.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable. The baseline score of 3 applies as the schema already covers all aspects.

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 ('List') and the resource ('workspaces') with a qualifier ('the authenticated user belongs to'). It is specific and easily distinguishes from sibling list tools targeting different resources.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_clients or list_projects. However, the resource name makes it somewhat obvious. A brief note about its exclusive scope for workspaces membership would improve usability.

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