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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only spaces visible to the token are listed (a key behavioral trait), and it adds the fact that each project has exactly one space keyed like the project. This is useful context beyond a trivial list call, but it doesn't mention response format or pagination.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a helpful relationship note. Everything earns its 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 list tool, the description is complete. It covers what it lists, the token scoping, and a key invariant (one space per project). An output schema is absent, but a list of spaces is predictable; the description covers the essentials.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (empty object), so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It still provides useful context about the relationship between projects and spaces, which is helpful for understanding the output.

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?

States a clear verb and resource ('List the wiki spaces') with a scoping detail ('visible to this token'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like search_wiki or get_wiki_page, but the purpose is clear enough.

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?

Implies usage when you need to enumerate the wiki spaces available to the token, but doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. The scoping to token is useful context, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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