kaiten_list_spaces

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the description needn't repeat safety semantics. It does add useful scoping context by saying 'accessible' spaces, i.e. filtered to the caller's permissions. However, it never mentions that results are paginated, which is the main behavioral trait an agent could get wrong here.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the follow-up guidance second. Nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the low-complexity read operation is largely covered. The omission of pagination behavior for a list endpoint with limit/offset parameters is the remaining gap that could affect correct invocation.

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%, so both limit and offset are documented only by name, type, default, and bounds. The description says nothing about pagination, the default page size of 25, or the 100 maximum, so an agent must open the schema to avoid under-fetching large spaces.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List accessible Kaiten spaces'), so the operation is unambiguous. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular kaiten_get_space and from kaiten_list_boards by framing spaces as the parent of boards, though it never states the distinction outright.

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?

'Use their IDs to discover boards' gives a clear chained-workflow reason to call this tool and points the agent toward the natural follow-up. It stops short of naming the alternative sibling (kaiten_list_boards) or stating when this tool is not appropriate.

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