List Spaces

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

Although annotations already mark this as read-only, the description adds important behavior beyond that: it explains the tree return shape, the fields on each node, and permission-based visibility so missing Spaces mean unusable Spaces. This is substantive operational context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 front-loaded with the primary use case and ID lookup purpose, then moves to the return shape and visibility rule. Every sentence adds useful information, with no repetition or filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, which it does by describing the tree structure and node fields. It also covers the permission scoping behavior, making the definition complete for an agent to call and interpret it correctly.

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 there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output and usage instead.

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 names a specific verb and resource (list Spaces), states the primary reason to use it (when the user talks about Spaces), and explains the ID lookup use case for related tools. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings such as list_niches and add_niche_spaces by describing its role as the source of Space IDs.

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?

It explicitly says to use this first when Spaces are mentioned and when IDs are needed for add_niche_spaces, remove_niche_spaces, and the spaces filters on list_niches and list_rank_radars. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the downstream tools whose inputs depend on it.

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