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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: results are ordered with "the ones you run first," roles are enumerated, and role implications for posting and viewing stats/submissions are explained. It does not discuss pagination or limits, but those may not apply.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core list behavior first and downstream guidance last. There is slight redundancy between "Spaces you follow or help run, with your role" and "Lists your Spaces with your role in each," but the extra sentences mostly earn their place.

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, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is returned (spaces plus role), the ordering, the role values, and why the result matters for other Space tools. No critical caller information appears to be 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter semantics and instead focuses on output meaning and downstream usage.

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: "Lists your Spaces with your role in each." It also scopes the list to "Spaces you follow or help run," which is clear. It does not explicitly contrast sibling list tools, though "Use space_id in the other Space tools" positions this as a prerequisite.

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 line "Use space_id in the other Space tools" gives clear routing guidance: call this to obtain space IDs before using other Space tools. It also explains role/permission context. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives, so it is not a 5.

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