io_list_spaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond them — no mention of pagination, default result count, response shape, or whether results are tenant-scoped; the parenthetical '(rooms)' is domain gloss, not behavior.

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 with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the optional scoping constraint follows immediately. Nothing extraneous or buried.

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?

All seven parameters are documented in the schema and no output schema is needed, so the terse description is workable for a simple read. However, it omits routing context against the many list/get siblings and gives no hint about pagination or search behavior, leaving the agent to derive these from the schema alone.

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 baseline is 3. The description only restates the floorId filter already documented in the schema and says nothing about the other six parameters (view, limit, search, orderBy, startAt, orderByType), adding no meaning beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List iOffice spaces (rooms)') and adds the floor-filter scope, which separates it from io_get_space (singular). It does not name any sibling tool or scope like io_list_floors/io_list_buildings, so sibling differentiation is only implicit through the resource noun.

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?

'Optionally filter by floor ID' implies a usage pattern (scope the listing when you want a subset), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-tool guidance (e.g., use io_get_space for a single room, use search for name matching). Implied usage only.

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