list_spaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing a caching layer with a configured TTL, which tells the agent results may be stale — genuinely useful behavior beyond the structured fields.

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, purpose front-loaded, with the caching note second. No filler, though 'the configured TTL' is slightly vague without saying where it is configured.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a tool with six parameters, nested cursor objects and a custom pagination contract, the description leaves the agent without enough guidance on how to page correctly.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no meaning for limit, offset, detail, or the cursor machinery (text_offsets, section_offsets, previous_page). 'Pages are fetched' vaguely hints pagination exists but gives no guidance on the non-obvious continuation contract.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List accessible spaces') and the scope qualifier 'accessible' usefully narrows what comes back. It is clearly distinguishable from get_space and the list_space_cards/list_boards siblings, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_space (single space lookup) or list_space_cards, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'List'.

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