x_api_get_spaces_by_creator_ids

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It comprehensively covers read-only nature, required permissions and scopes, environment/tenant selection, expected response shape, common failure conditions, and safety warnings about sensitive data. This exceeds the typical level of transparency and fully compensates for missing annotations.

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 well-organized with labeled sections, making it easy to scan. Most sections earn their place. The 'Use when' line is redundant with the opening sentence, and the 'Recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools' could be considered extraneous, but the structure remains effective and mostly concise.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description provides substantial context: permissions, auth resolution, response shape, failure modes, and an example. It lacks explicit guidance on choosing between scopeUserId and scopeAccountId, and omits authorizationKey/preferredAuthType, but overall it is thorough enough for an agent to use the tool correctly in most cases.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains user_ids (query, array, required) and details the scope parameters (scopeTenantId, scopeUserId/scopeAccountId, credentialKey) in the environment-selection behavior. However, authorizationKey and preferredAuthType are not described, leaving a partial gap. Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Get Spaces by creator IDs' with a specific verb and resource, and the qualifier 'by creator IDs' distinguishes it from sibling tools like x_api_get_spaces_by_ids, x_api_get_spaces_by_id, and x_api_search_spaces. This is unambiguous and specific.

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 'Use when' section merely restates the purpose ('Get Spaces by creator IDs'), offering no additional guidance. The 'Do not use when' clause provides generic advice about auth/configuration and exploration tools, but it does not compare this tool to alternatives like x_api_get_spaces_by_ids or x_api_search_spaces. Usage context is implied but not explicitly differentiated from siblings.

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