wiki_list_spaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and does not mention pagination behavior, that it is read-only, or what the response contains. These are important details for a tool with page_size and page_token parameters and no output schema.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without extraneous words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 tool with well-documented parameters, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain pagination flow or describe the return structure (e.g., fields of the space objects). The absence of an output schema increases the need for such context, making this minimally sufficient rather than fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% for the two parameters (page_size and page_token), each with descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3.

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 specifies a clear verb '列出' (list), a specific resource '知识库' (knowledge bases), and a scope '当前用户可见' (visible to current user). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wiki_get_space (which fetches a single space) and wiki_list_nodes (which lists nodes within a space).

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 clearly implies its use case: enumerating all knowledge bases available to the current user. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the specific scope and resource make the intended usage evident without confusion.

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