scobees_list_workspaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral fact: this is read-only and administrative mutation is out of scope. It says nothing about ordering, completeness, or whether the subjects are returned inline versus by reference, gaps that matter for a zero-parameter listing call.

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 with zero filler. The resource and its payload (subjects) come first, and the read-only constraint follows as a secondary note, so the agent gets the essential fact immediately.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (learning areas together with their subjects) and the permission boundary. Minor shortfall: it never indicates nesting shape or whether the result is exhaustive, which an agent would want before chaining into a get_lernpfad call.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema is empty and there is nothing further the description could reasonably document. The description correctly frames the call as unfiltered and global ("alle Lernbereiche"), which confirms no filtering options are expected.

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 and resource ("Listet alle Lernbereiche ... mit ihren Fächern"), plus a clarifying gloss ("Kacheln in der Bib") that pins down what a Lernbereich is. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the several sibling list tools (list_subjects, list_tags, list_lernpfade), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 clause "Nur lesen – Verwaltung bleibt beim Administrator" implies this is a safe read-only discovery call and that write operations live elsewhere, which is useful implied guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over scobees_list_subjects or scobees_list_lernpfade, so the alternative selection is left to inference.

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