list_wiki_spaces

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

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It only notes that the tool lists 'accessible' spaces, implying authentication-based filtering, but omits details about side effects, rate limits, or whether the list is paginated. The phrase 'Official API' adds minimal behavioral insight.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) with no filler. It earns its place by stating the core function efficiently. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It tells what it does but not what the agent should expect (e.g., a list of space IDs/names, pagination, ordering). While acceptable for a simple list, more completeness would aid agent planning.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. According to guidelines, baseline is 4 for no parameter tools, which is justified here.

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 clearly states the tool lists 'all accessible Wiki spaces', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_wiki_nodes (which lists nodes within a space) and get_wiki_node (specific node), making its unique purpose evident.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., permissions) or comparison with related list tools like list_wiki_nodes. The agent lacks context for appropriate selection.

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