get_spaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes a read operation but doesn't state behavior around the 'archived' parameter (e.g., whether archived spaces are excluded by default), pagination, or what fields are returned. Lacks disclosure of likely destructive/side-effect-free nature.

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?

One concise sentence, zero waste. Every word earns its place and the description is appropriately minimal for a simple retrieval tool.

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 simple filtered-list read operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is reasonably complete. However, it doesn't address whether archived is default-excluded or explain return structure, which are minor gaps for a list-returning tool.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (team_id as required workspace ID, archived as boolean to include archived spaces). The description adds no further param meaning, but the schema already handles the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb ('get') + resource ('spaces') + scope ('in a workspace'). Distinguishes well from siblings like get_workspace, get_folders, get_lists, and get_space (singular form). Purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Implied usage context from the tool name and siblings (retrieves all spaces within a team), but no explicit statement of when to use this vs the singular get_space or when filtering might be needed. No alternative tool named explicitly, though get_space is an obvious sibling.

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