list_workspaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' conveys a non-mutating read, and it additionally reveals that output includes window counts and an [focused] marker on the active workspace. For a simple query tool this is sufficient; no side effects, auth, or rate-limit caveats are expected.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the main action first and the active-workspace behavior second. Every word adds information.

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 parameterless listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the resource, the extra field (window counts), and the special marking for the active workspace. Return format is already covered by the output schema.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are a non-issue.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workspaces') and adds two distinguishing details: window counts and the [focused] marker. It is immediately clear what this tool does and how it differs from sibling list tools such as list_windows or list_monitors.

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 read-only listing purpose is clear, and the [focused] marker signals that this tool is useful for identifying the active workspace. It does not explicitly name alternatives like switch_workspace or state when not to use it, but the context alone is unambiguous.

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