chat_listSpaces

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares the operation is a safe read. The description adds the scoping detail 'you are a member of,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or the structure of the returned spaces.

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 a single, compact sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable and informative.

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 simplicity of a zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is adequate: it states the action and the scope. It does not detail the return format, but without an output schema and with the read-only annotation, the description covers the essential context.

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 coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; no additional parameter explanation is needed since there are none.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lists' and identifies the resource as 'Google Chat spaces you are a member of.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like chat_findSpaceByName (search for a specific space) and chat_listThreads (lists threads).

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 implies use when the agent needs to enumerate all Chat spaces the user belongs to, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No sibling comparison is mentioned.

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