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

Annotations already declare this a safe, non-destructive, closed-world read, so the bar is lower. The description does add the pagination trait ('page through'), which is useful behavior beyond the annotations, but it omits the sign-in requirement hinted at in the regex schema and says nothing about ordering or result size.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a four-parameter paginated 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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a four-parameter list tool with 25% schema coverage, the description leaves out parameter roles, auth requirements, and sibling differentiation, making it only minimally complete.

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 only 25%; only regex is documented, and richly so (including the note that limit counts rows read). The description itself adds no meaning for space_id, cursor, or limit, so it does not compensate for the low coverage as required.

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 gives a specific verb (page through) and resource (files) scoped to a private Space, so the agent knows this is a paginated listing tool. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as space_file_get (single file) or space_search, which keeps it from a 5.

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 states only what the tool does, with no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative such as space_search for filename/content queries. Nothing tells the agent when this is preferable to space_file_get or space_search.

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