List Spaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add value by stating the result set is scoped to spaces the authenticated user can access and that each entry carries a name and ID, but it omits pagination, ordering, rate-limit, or permission-failure behavior for a list operation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the return shape, then the downstream workflow. Every sentence carries information and none is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully outlines the return payload (name and ID per space), and the single required parameter is fully covered by the schema. It is close to complete for a simple read-only list tool, missing only pagination/result-size expectations.

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 single org_id parameter is already documented with its provenance ('from podio_list_organizations'). The description only reinforces that spaces are grouped 'within an organization,' adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Returns all spaces (workspaces)') and scopes it to the authenticated user within an organization, which distinguishes it from the app/item siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with podio_list_organizations or podio_list_apps, but the resource 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or when-not-to-use exclusion. Usage is only implied through the workflow hint 'Use space IDs to list apps,' which tells the agent where the output feeds next but not when this tool should be chosen over alternatives.

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