workspace_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds context about remote HTTP/OAuth usage and warns local callers, which goes beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the main action and immediately provides key exclusions and usage constraints.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It explains purpose, scope, and exclusion for local callers, leaving no gaps.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description cannot add param-specific meaning beyond the schema. However, it describes the output (list of workspace aliases), which is sufficient for this parameterless tool. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'registered workspace aliases for remote HTTP/OAuth provider calls', clearly distinguishing it from other workspace tools like workspace_create, workspace_get, and workspace_register_existing_repo. It also explicitly states what it does not do ('Does not browse files').

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when not to use this tool: 'Stdio/local callers should not use workspace_* tools to fix provider path access', and directs them to use alternative parameters (local workingDir/addDir/includeDirs). Also clarifies that it does not browse files, guiding users away from incorrect expectations.

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