kaiten_list_spaces

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses that this is a list/read operation and describes the array shape, but it does not clarify whether archived spaces are returned by default or whether pagination applies, and 'all' is slightly ambiguous given the archived parameter.

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 place the operation first and the return shape second. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 list endpoint with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema gives enough to invoke it correctly. It could be more complete by stating the default behavior of the archived parameter, but nothing essential is missing.

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 already documents compact and archived. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable but earns only the baseline score.

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?

Begins with a specific verb-resource pair, 'List all Kaiten spaces,' and names the key returned fields (id, title, description, access type). The tool is clearly distinct from the sibling get/create/update/delete space tools.

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 makes the context obvious: use it when you need the full collection of spaces, and the return-type note signals it is appropriate for enumeration. It does not explicitly name alternatives like kaiten_get_space for single-space lookups, so it stops short of a 5.

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