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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It thoroughly explains the meaning of each returned permission field (your_role, is_owner, access, can_write) and clarifies that can_write alone doesn't guarantee ingest capability. This is rich behavioral context beyond a simple listing.

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 well-organized with a clear opening sentence and bullet points for each field. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes the permission semantics easily scannable. There is no wasted text.

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?

Given the zero-parameter simplicity, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns and how to interpret the annotations, which is essential since there is no output schema. It also provides relevant caveats about the 'ingest' capability, making the tool's usage fully understandable.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly focuses on the output semantics instead. No parameter explanation is needed.

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 clearly states the tool lists spaces the user can see, distinguishing it from other space-related tools like reading a space's contents or creating a space. It specifies the scope (own/member/public) and the permission annotations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use this to tell the user which spaces they can read vs. write vs. only see as public.' It gives a concrete use case but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, which is acceptable for a straightforward listing tool.

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