cf_spaces

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses only the org-scoping. It says nothing about read-only semantics, required authentication/target context, pagination, or what an empty result means for a listing that is inherently dependent on prior cf_target/cf_login state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity is arguably part of the under-specification problem rather than a virtue on its own.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it does not indicate the shape of the returned space list, nor note that results depend on which org is currently targeted. Nothing an agent needs is outright missing, but nothing extra is provided either.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4; there is no parameter syntax for the description to clarify. Any parameter documentation would be redundant 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?

States a clear verb and resource ('List all spaces') plus a scope qualifier ('in the current organization'), which lets an agent distinguish it from cf_create_space or cf_orgs by name alone. It stops short of explicitly naming any sibling or contrasting itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the name and the phrase 'current organization' tell an agent this is the read-side counterpart to cf_create_space, but the description never states when to reach for it, what must precede it (a target org), or what the alternative is when a space isn't found.

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