list_workspaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the operation is a read-only listing and that results are 'compact' with assignment status counts, but it does not address pagination, sorting, authentication needs, or the exact response behavior.

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 focused sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 list operation with an output schema available, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and primary output content. It could add a note on when to choose this over detail endpoints, but nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds relevant context about what the listing covers.

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 states a specific action, 'List compact workspaces,' and a distinguishing detail, 'with assignment status counts.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_workspace_detail (single workspace details) and register_workspace (creation).

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 description implies use when you need a summary-level overview of workspaces with assignment counts, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_workspace_detail. There is no mention of exclusions or routing conditions.

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