pan_list_spaces

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

没有 annotations，描述承担了全部行为披露责任。它说明了工具会列出空间并包含 space_id，但未说明是否需要先登录、返回结果是否仅限于当前用户有权限访问的空间，以及“全部空间”是否存在分页或数量限制。行为主体清楚，但边界条件有缺失。

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?

单句描述，动词开头，信息密度高；既说明了对象范围（个人空间/团队空间），又给出了关键输出字段 space_id，没有冗余内容。

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?

对于一个无参数、无输出 schema 的简单列表工具，描述基本够用，但未说明登录前提和访问范围边界，可能导致代理在未登录或权限受限时对返回结果产生错误预期。整体可用但存在轻微信息缺口。

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?

参数数量为 0，输入 schema 为空且描述覆盖率达到 100%，因此参数层面没有额外信息需要补充。描述中提到的 space_id 是输出信息而非参数，不影响参数语义评分。

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?

描述以具体动词“列出”明确行为，资源是“交大云盘的全部空间”，并进一步限定“个人空间/团队空间”以及返回包含 space_id。与 pan_list_dir、pan_search 等兄弟工具在资源对象上有明显区分，代理能清楚知道该工具用于枚举空间而非目录或文件。

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?

描述隐含了“需要获取空间列表或 space_id 时使用”的用途，但未显式说明何时不使用、是否有前置条件（如登录），也没有点名可替代的兄弟工具。属于可以通过上下文推断的使用场景，但缺少明确排除或替代指引。

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