bb_list_workspaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists 'accessible' workspaces, implying a read-only operation and access constraints. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or that no modifications occur, leaving some gaps for a simple list 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all accessible workspaces') followed by a short purpose clause. Every word contributes, with no fluff or 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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema and well-documented parameters, the description is adequate. It covers the core functionality and purpose. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the return format or that results are paginated, but the schema already covers pagination.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 4 parameters (page, filter, pagelen, output_format). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('List'), resource ('workspaces'), and scope ('all accessible'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bb_get_workspace (singular) and other list tools (bb_list_repositories, bb_list_pipelines).

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 phrase 'for discovery and exploration' provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use bb_get_workspace for a single workspace'), so it misses the top tier.

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