list_spaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that results are scoped to the configured account's visibility and that pagination is supported through page_size (1-1000) and page_token from a previous call. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but 'list' plus the visibility/pagination details cover the key behavior for this read 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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args list is compact. Every sentence contributes distinct information, with no redundant wording or filler.

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?

The purpose and both optional parameters are covered, so a basic call is fully specified. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe the response shape or how the returned next_page_token would be surfaced, which an agent needs to confidently implement multi-page listing. Auth/rate-limit notes are also absent, though less critical for a read-only list.

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 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning, and it does: page_size is explained as the max number of spaces to return with an explicit 1-1000 range, and page_token is explained as a token from a previous call to fetch the next page. This goes well beyond the raw integer/string/null types in the schema.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List Google Chat spaces...'. It adds the scope 'the configured account can see', which separates it from siblings that operate on messages (send_message, list_messages, search_messages). Even without a title, the purpose 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?

The description makes clear that this is for listing spaces visible to the configured account, which gives context for when it applies. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or say when to prefer it over search_messages/list_messages.

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