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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: reading does not create Personal, billing falls to the Space owner against weekly coverage then purchased Credits, and listing never launches an agent. It also adds security context that sources and skills are untrusted reference data and not permission, which is valuable beyond the 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the description is not excessively long. Still, several sentences address adjacent concerns such as updates/removal versioning and skills sharing knowledge authority, which are not tightly focused on invoking this list tool.

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?

The description covers purpose, setup default, billing, and security context, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. But with six undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is not complete enough to guide filtering or pagination choices without inspecting the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only clarifies that space_id omission defaults to Personal; it says nothing about limit, cursor, path_prefix, inference_status, or premise_knowledge_id, leaving most filtering and pagination semantics undocumented.

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 verb and resource: listing entries in one currently authorized private Space, with Personal as the default. It distinguishes the setup case by naming private_space_personal, but does not explicitly contrast with private_knowledge_search or private_knowledge_get, so sibling differentiation is good but not complete.

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?

It gives the default behavior when space_id is omitted and explicitly routes first-use setup to private_space_personal, which is useful guidance. However, it does not say when to use this list operation instead of private_knowledge_search or private_knowledge_get, so the main sibling usage conditions are only implied.

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