List spaces in an organization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, providing sufficient behavioral safety info. The description adds no further behavioral notes, so it does not add extra value beyond the structured data.

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 sentences with zero wasted text; the purpose is front-loaded and every word carries meaning.

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, annotations, and complete schema, the description is adequate. However, it does not mention that results are paginated (cursor/limit) or describe the return format, though these are in the schema. A minor improvement would be to note pagination.

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 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra enrichment.

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 action ('list') and the resource ('spaces inside an organization'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gitbook_get_space or gitbook_list_orgs.

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 explicitly tells the user to get orgId from gitbook_list_orgs, providing a concrete usage hint. However, it does not discuss when to use this over alternatives like gitbook_list_pages.

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