kaiten_list_spaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'accessible' permission-scoping note, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters. Modest added value over annotations.

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, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy or filler. The action is stated first and the downstream use second.

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 need not be described, and the tool is a simple list operation. However, for a paginated endpoint the description omits any mention of limit/offset or result-set behavior, leaving a real gap given 0% parameter coverage.

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% for the two parameters (limit, offset), and the description adds no information about them at all. Since the schema only supplies type, default, and bounds, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a paginated list tool.

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 specific verb and resource ('List accessible Kaiten spaces') with a scope qualifier ('accessible'). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling kaiten_get_space, but the second sentence routes the agent toward board discovery, making the tool's place in the hierarchy reasonably clear.

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 implied workflow guidance for what to do after the call, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives statement (e.g., use kaiten_get_space when you already have an ID). The context is implied rather than stated.

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