List Spaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond them – results are limited to spaces the caller can access, and each entry carries the caller's role – but says nothing about ordering, clustering, or handling empty results, so it is incremental rather than rich.

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, zero filler, with the resource and scope front-loaded and the workflow cue second. Nothing repeated from schema or annotations.

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?

Output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description only needs to orient the agent – which it does by naming the access scope and the returned role field. A note on ordering or on what an empty list implies would close the remaining gap.

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% and both parameters (limit, cursor) are fully documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description adds no syntax or format detail about them, so 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (Docmost spaces) plus a scope qualifier ('you can access') and the extra payload ('with your role in each'). That distinguishes it from get_space (single space) and create_space without naming them explicitly; only the absence of explicit sibling naming keeps it from a 5.

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?

'Start here to get the space ids other tools need' gives a concrete sequencing cue that tells an agent to call this before tools requiring a space id. It doesn't state exclusions (e.g., when to prefer whoami or get_space instead), 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.