list_wiki_spaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral nuances: it follows pagination internally, notes a pre-v1.3.17 cap of 50, and explains the exact response flags (truncated:true, cursorUnavailable:true) when the upstream cursor stalls. This goes beyond typical list operations and prepares the agent for edge cases.

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 compact, with the core purpose in the first sentence and essential caveats in the following sentences. Every sentence provides unique value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: scope, pagination behavior, version-specific behavior, and error handling. It is complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results without needing additional 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, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the schema. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List all accessible Wiki spaces.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling wiki tools by focusing on 'spaces' rather than 'nodes' (e.g., list_wiki_nodes). The mention of 'all accessible' and internal pagination reinforces the scope and purpose.

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 provides clear context by explaining that pagination is handled internally and that all spaces are returned, which implies this is the go-to tool for listing wiki spaces without manual pagination. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficient for selection among wiki-related siblings.

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